Blaming Vatican II
(07-05-2009, 08:18 PM)DJR Wrote:
(07-05-2009, 06:16 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(07-04-2009, 11:15 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(07-04-2009, 03:52 PM)DJR Wrote: You just made my point.  Liberius was not a heretic.  Therefore, his actions did not constitute an approval of the heresy.  They were done out of weakness.

Further, if Liberius was NOT a heretic but people judged him as if he were, those people erred, didn't they?

Exactly my point.

I apologize; I don't mean to interfere, but did you honestly miss this?

"De Romano Pontifice, St. Robert Bellarmine" Wrote:"...For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.

???

Yes, and if DJR doesn't see (and then admit) how he has misread or misunderstood something so clear...I can't see any point in continuing this discussion.

Not at all.  You changed the point.  I was commenting on one, and only one, statement from you above, and your statement was too broad.  That's all I was saying.

Your quote:  "A failure to condemn is approval. This principle has always been applied in the Church."

According to that statement, the Catholic Church approves of the new Mass, as the new Mass has never been condemned by the Church. Thus, if the Church approves of the new Mass, why do you oppose it?

So, keeping in mind your statement that "a failure to condemn is approval" and that "this principle has always been applied in the Church," and also keeping in mind that the new Mass has never been condemned by the Church, what would be your answer to the question, "Is the new Mass approved by the Catholic Church?"

Can you see the problem in a blanket application of your statement?  That's the only thing I intended to point out, and nothing else.

That's also why I brought up the topic of Monsignor Lefebvre.  Regardless of whether one believes he signed the documents on DH and Rel Lib, it is nowhere disputed that he signed the other documents.  And those documents also contain statements that members of the SSPX consider heretical, statements that Archbishop Lefebvre opposed even though he signed the documents.

And if he did sign DH and Rel Lib, which, as I stated before, the research demonstrates that he did (it's admitted by members of the SSPX), and if those documents contain heretical statements, that means that Archbishop Lefebvre put his signature to heretical statements, which would be one of those manifest acts that you assert show his internal disposition.  In other words, we would have to judge him a heretic.

I don't believe he was a heretic, regardless of how many Vatican II documents he signed.

Go back and read my original comment that YOU commented on.

Quote:Vatican II didn't lay down any rule against the Faith. The Faith was not outlawed by Vatican II. Nor was actual heresy imposed as an infallible law of belief. But it was an anti-council, and the men who ran it and who also took the other major actions of the era, were working against the Catholic Church. Why? Because the council and various other statements of doctrine contradicted Church teaching on many points, and they led the clergy and the faithful to think that they could freely doubt anything that suited them.

In the Conciliar Church, even if you actually read what was written;  you can believe anything you like. You will not be sanctioned. A failure to condemn is approval. This principle has always been applied in the Church. Honorius was (apparently) condemned precisely for his apparent failure to correct an error held by the Emperor Sergius.

So, has heresy become compulsory? No. Has heresy become permissible? Yes, certainly. Has heresy as a result become rampant? Yes, certainly. Does this bother anyone in the Heirarchy or anybody else of note in the Conciliar lowerarchy? No. If it did, they would say so. But they don't say so, do they?
Reply
(07-05-2009, 09:02 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(07-05-2009, 08:18 PM)DJR Wrote:
(07-05-2009, 06:16 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(07-04-2009, 11:15 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(07-04-2009, 03:52 PM)DJR Wrote: You just made my point.  Liberius was not a heretic.  Therefore, his actions did not constitute an approval of the heresy.  They were done out of weakness.

Further, if Liberius was NOT a heretic but people judged him as if he were, those people erred, didn't they?

Exactly my point.

I apologize; I don't mean to interfere, but did you honestly miss this?

"De Romano Pontifice, St. Robert Bellarmine" Wrote:"...For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.

???

Yes, and if DJR doesn't see (and then admit) how he has misread or misunderstood something so clear...I can't see any point in continuing this discussion.

Not at all.  You changed the point.  I was commenting on one, and only one, statement from you above, and your statement was too broad.  That's all I was saying.

Your quote:  "A failure to condemn is approval. This principle has always been applied in the Church."

According to that statement, the Catholic Church approves of the new Mass, as the new Mass has never been condemned by the Church. Thus, if the Church approves of the new Mass, why do you oppose it?

So, keeping in mind your statement that "a failure to condemn is approval" and that "this principle has always been applied in the Church," and also keeping in mind that the new Mass has never been condemned by the Church, what would be your answer to the question, "Is the new Mass approved by the Catholic Church?"

Can you see the problem in a blanket application of your statement?  That's the only thing I intended to point out, and nothing else.

That's also why I brought up the topic of Monsignor Lefebvre.  Regardless of whether one believes he signed the documents on DH and Rel Lib, it is nowhere disputed that he signed the other documents.  And those documents also contain statements that members of the SSPX consider heretical, statements that Archbishop Lefebvre opposed even though he signed the documents.

And if he did sign DH and Rel Lib, which, as I stated before, the research demonstrates that he did (it's admitted by members of the SSPX), and if those documents contain heretical statements, that means that Archbishop Lefebvre put his signature to heretical statements, which would be one of those manifest acts that you assert show his internal disposition.  In other words, we would have to judge him a heretic.

I don't believe he was a heretic, regardless of how many Vatican II documents he signed.

Go back and read my original comment that YOU commented on.

Quote:Vatican II didn't lay down any rule against the Faith. The Faith was not outlawed by Vatican II. Nor was actual heresy imposed as an infallible law of belief. But it was an anti-council, and the men who ran it and who also took the other major actions of the era, were working against the Catholic Church. Why? Because the council and various other statements of doctrine contradicted Church teaching on many points, and they led the clergy and the faithful to think that they could freely doubt anything that suited them.

In the Conciliar Church, even if you actually read what was written;  you can believe anything you like. You will not be sanctioned. A failure to condemn is approval. This principle has always been applied in the Church. Honorius was (apparently) condemned precisely for his apparent failure to correct an error held by the Emperor Sergius.

So, has heresy become compulsory? No. Has heresy become permissible? Yes, certainly. Has heresy as a result become rampant? Yes, certainly. Does this bother anyone in the Heirarchy or anybody else of note in the Conciliar lowerarchy? No. If it did, they would say so. But they don't say so, do they?

Okay, I read it.

Now, what is your answer to my previous post about the new Mass and Archbishop Lefebvre's having signed the documents of Vatican II?
Reply
(07-01-2009, 08:28 PM)Credo Wrote:
Mhoram Wrote:What were those weaknesses?

Off hand, not having systematically studied the "good ole' days" before the Council, a number of things come to mind.

For one, the liturgy was quite neglected. This comes as a shock to many traditionalists, no doubt. However the Irish minimalism forged over hundreds of years of British persecution had spilled over onto the Continent and especially the United States. (It is no coincidence these are the places where the Irish most sought refuge.) As a result the Low Mass unfortunately became the Sunday norm, along with a severe lack of hymnody. A collaroy to this point is that private devotions had crept their way into the faithful's hearing of Mass. This was not a good development. More damning than anything else on the liturgical front - and we do not blame the Irish for this - was the practical loss of the Divine Office to the non-Ordained faithful. Besides maybe Sunday Vespers and Compline, the richness of the Office was unknown to Latins in the days before the Council.

Catholic education, from children's catechism to seminary philosophy, was basically reduced to rote memorization. From a personal vantage point, I see rather forboding imitations of this in my traditional parish nowadays. The children can give word-for-word regurgitation's of the Baltimore Catechism to the delight of parents. However I have casually asked some of these same children the same questions from a different angel and have received blank stares in return. The late, great William Marra - whom many trads may be familiar with - also pointed out this educational deficiency among pre-Vatican II clergy.

To continue in the area of catchesis, it is clear that there was also a large inability to grasp the difference between Church Doctrine, and traditions or customs. This can be evidenced by the supprising number of people one runs across even today who are deeply unsettled, for instance, by the changes to Friday abstinence. It is to them as if someone declared a forth person added to the Trinity.

A reorientation of the laity, not a barnacles on the Church but as vital members, was also long past due.

From what reading I have done, it seems that these were some of the weak areas prior to 1962. Did it need a Council to address? That's for another post....



Oh, BIG edit: Don't think that the liberalism we associate with the "Spirit of Vatican II" came out of nowhere. Bad theologians, philosophers and Biblical commentaries were bubbling under the surface throughout the whole first half of the 20th century.



Wow! I think I will have to read the post a few more times but so far a real eye opener
Reply
Bubbling under the surface?
These theologins congar balthazar kung were shut up and forbidden to teach or publish they were gaged
At vpoooo they were accepted as fathers of the couinci
What then can we make of that?
Sip
Reply
(01-07-2010, 08:30 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Bubbling under the surface?
These theologins congar balthazar kung were shut up and forbidden to teach or publish they were gaged
At vpoooo they were accepted as fathers of the couinci
What then can we make of that?
Sip

That the Council Fathers and the preceding Popes embraced heresy with open arms.
Reply
Not to mentipn korans and hindu fetish haunts in the sanctuary. But let's not let that get in the way of our obediance now
Sip
Reply
(01-07-2010, 10:03 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Not to mentipn korans and hindu fetish haunts in the sanctuary. But let's not let that get in the way of our obediance now
Sip

Are you telling me there is something wrong with having a statue of Buddah on the Alter where the tabernacle should be during mass?! 

Get with the times and the one world religion. Geez your so close minded DK. I bet you dont even like nuns who help women get abortions.

:laughing:
Reply
I know
My charity needs work
Reply
(07-01-2009, 02:33 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(07-01-2009, 02:19 PM)Caritas Wrote: I am with you when you say that the documents of Vatican II are often vague and sometimes have the sound of teachings which are errors.  But, so far my investigations of these have shown that one can interpret them in ways which are not erroneous.  Should we have cause to believe that a valid ecumenical council which is headed by the pope can actually fail to understand the Sacred Magisterium well enough to avoid teaching it in error?  With that ghastly thought, I prefer to interpret V2 in the ways which are not erroneous and chalk the whole thing up to a message which failed to achieve its aim, but not one which is erroneous in its content.

Then try this:

From the Infallible Magisterium:

Blessed Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors Wrote:(As I'm sure you know, the condemnations in the Syllabus are stated negatively, i.e, they must be read with 'It is a condemned opinion that' understood before each)

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852

From the Council:

Dignitatis Humanae, Vatican II Wrote:The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.[2] This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

As I investigat traditional catholicism, this is probably the debate that gives me the biggest headache.  How can we not have a right to religious freedom?  The church herself teaches the concept of free will.  We have to either choose for or against Christ freely, without coercion and full freedom to rebel also.  As a human being, as I understand it, I have the right to believe what I choose (even if I am wrong and will suffer the eternal consequences).  PLEASE someone help me understand this!
Reply
Also, the fact I even have to search out and debate ANY of these concepts makes me want to cry!  I thought when I became Catholic and left protestantism, that I would find a church unified in it's teachings.  I didn't expect to always have to debate and figure out things for myself, which is relativism and a major weakness of protestantism.  It is too easy to see what you want to see, when you are doing the interpreting.  I thought I was getting an infallible church with ancient, consistent apostolic teaching so that I didn't always have to reinvent the wheel!  I sometimes feel like I was lied to and sold a bill of goods!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)