Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you
(07-29-2009, 09:27 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
Quote:They merely, with Peter's denial of Christ, open the way for me to begin to understand how a pope could do what Paul VI did.
Except Peter's threefold denial came before his threefold profession:

17 "Feed my sheep"... Our Lord had promised the spiritual supremacy to St. Peter; St. Matt. 16. 19; and here he fulfils that promise, by charging him with the superintendency of all his sheep, without exception; and consequently of his whole flock, that is, of his own church.

This is absolutely true.  Yet his denial also came after his reception of the Keys, which is also significant, and thus, still, lends his denial to helping the faithful come to an understanding of the extent to which popes can fail in their vocation.
Reply
(07-29-2009, 11:31 AM)iggyting Wrote: There is always a caesar in us.

??? This statement is very odd, iggy.  The power of government is in the hands of those whose responsibility it happens to be to govern.  Barack Obama, for example, has the power of government.  It was given to him secondarily by popular vote (i.e., the consent of the governed), but primarily by God.  Our founding documents profess the doctrine that Barack Obama primarily receives the power to govern from the consent of the governed!  This is a falsehood condemned by the anti-modernist popes.

(07-29-2009, 11:31 AM)iggyting Wrote: In asking whether the Church has betrayed itself is like Pilate asking Jesus whether he can be true to himself.

Anyone who understands what the Church teaches about Herself will know immediately that the Church Herself cannot betray Herself.  Also, when does Pilate ask Jesus "whether he can be true to Himself?"  That doesn't even really make sense...  Pilate asks Him what Truth is, not what you said.

(07-29-2009, 11:31 AM)iggyting Wrote: Is it happening now as it had happened during the Great Schism and the Reformation in the past?

Is what happening now?  That people are asking whether the Church can betray Herself?  Maybe.  But they are about to profess a heresy.  Anyone asking that question has forgotten that the Church can be betrayed by Her own.  Haven't they ever heard of Judas and Peter?  Haven't they ever heard of men like Paul VI who, without wanting or intending to, betrayed the Church?  Talk about the perfect example of the fallibility of men!

Iggy, no true Catholic can ever say that the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Church.  That is a heretical statement.  You cannot make THAT heretical statement equal with the statement that a pope can betray the Church willingly or unwillingly.  It's TOTALLY different.
Reply
You misunderstood me Zakhur. No matter. Ok, I could have been less circumspect from the start.

It is my impression that some saw Vatican II as a 'betrayal' of the Church without discerning Vatican II was the 'Church in proceeding'. Those who reacted too far in self-righteous anger caused a schism already. Their action was not unlike that of the Protestant-reformers of the past who thought that they were 'saving' Christ's church where in fact they , like Pilate, were judging Christ. One can debate whether Vatican II 'gave more to Caesar than to God' but one should never believe that it was 'all Caesar and no God'. The Church Militant has been 'giving back to Caesar' throughout its history, that is, it is a pilgrim Church on its way to perfection.
Reply
(07-30-2009, 11:42 PM)iggyting Wrote: You misunderstood me Zakhur. No matter. Ok, I could have been less circumspect from the start.

It is my impression that some saw Vatican II as a 'betrayal' of the Church without discerning Vatican II was the 'Church in proceeding'. Those who reacted too far in self-righteous anger caused a schism already. Their action was not unlike that of the Protestant-reformers of the past who thought that they were 'saving' Christ's church where in fact they , like Pilate, were judging Christ. One can debate whether Vatican II 'gave more to Caesar than to God' but one should never believe that it was 'all Caesar and no God'. The Church Militant has been 'giving back to Caesar' throughout its history, that is, it is a pilgrim Church on its way to perfection.

Iggy, I like that!  :)
Reply
(07-30-2009, 11:42 PM)iggyting Wrote: You misunderstood me Zakhur. No matter. Ok, I could have been less circumspect from the start.

It is my impression that some saw Vatican II as a 'betrayal' of the Church without discerning Vatican II was the 'Church in proceeding'. Those who reacted too far in self-righteous anger caused a schism already. Their action was not unlike that of the Protestant-reformers of the past who thought that they were 'saving' Christ's church where in fact they , like Pilate, were judging Christ. One can debate whether Vatican II 'gave more to Caesar than to God' but one should never believe that it was 'all Caesar and no God'. The Church Militant has been 'giving back to Caesar' throughout its history, that is, it is a pilgrim Church on its way to perfection.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but you should expect to be misunderstood when you posts are unclear.

Heck man, I don't even think the whole council contains nearly false teachings!  It doesn't!  That's not how it damaged the Faith on earth.  The council damages the Faith of people in a much more subtle way.  It is thus far more dangerous than explicit heresy.

The difference between the Protestants and those who challenge Vatican II is that the Protestants actually challenged, then denied,  long-held teachings of the Church while those who challenge Vatican II, do so because, as Cardinal Ratzinger once said, what is new in Vatican II has offended the sensus fidelium.  The ONLY way for that kind of a situation to happen is that the sensus fidelium would have to have been formed incorrectly by a slightly aberrant pre-conciliar Magisterium.  Either the pre-conciliar Magisterium was wrong to condemn the errors of the modern world with which Vatican II sought compromise, or Vatican II was wrong to compromise and could very well have been an unholy council.

The traditionalist critique, and disobedience to, the council and its aftermath is very different from the Protestant revolution.  This has been acknowledged by a large number of well-informed people in the Church, including the man who is now pope.  It is not intellectually honest to compare the two, once you know certain facts.
Reply
(07-31-2009, 08:45 AM)Zakhur Wrote:
(07-30-2009, 11:42 PM)iggyting Wrote: You misunderstood me Zakhur. No matter. Ok, I could have been less circumspect from the start.

It is my impression that some saw Vatican II as a 'betrayal' of the Church without discerning Vatican II was the 'Church in proceeding'. Those who reacted too far in self-righteous anger caused a schism already. Their action was not unlike that of the Protestant-reformers of the past who thought that they were 'saving' Christ's church where in fact they , like Pilate, were judging Christ. One can debate whether Vatican II 'gave more to Caesar than to God' but one should never believe that it was 'all Caesar and no God'. The Church Militant has been 'giving back to Caesar' throughout its history, that is, it is a pilgrim Church on its way to perfection.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but you should expect to be misunderstood when you posts are unclear.

Heck man, I don't even think the whole council contains nearly false teachings!  It doesn't!  That's not how it damaged the Faith on earth.  The council damages the Faith of people in a much more subtle way.  It is thus far more dangerous than explicit heresy.

The difference between the Protestants and those who challenge Vatican II is that the Protestants actually challenged, then denied,  long-held teachings of the Church while those who challenge Vatican II, do so because, as Cardinal Ratzinger once said, what is new in Vatican II has offended the sensus fidelium.  The ONLY way for that kind of a situation to happen is that the sensus fidelium would have to have been formed incorrectly by a slightly aberrant pre-conciliar Magisterium.  Either the pre-conciliar Magisterium was wrong to condemn the errors of the modern world with which Vatican II sought compromise, or Vatican II was wrong to compromise and could very well have been an unholy council.

The traditionalist critique, and disobedience to, the council and its aftermath is very different from the Protestant revolution.  This has been acknowledged by a large number of well-informed people in the Church, including the man who is now pope.  It is not intellectually honest to compare the two, once you know certain facts.

The Pope's condemnation of error is an infallible judgment. So the idea that the "pre-conciliar Magisterium was wrong to condemn the errors" is absolutely false.

"Scheeben" Wrote:III. Ex cathedra decisions admit of great variety of form. At the same time, in the documents containing such decisions only those passages are infallible which the judge manifestly intended to be so. Recommendations, proofs, and explanations accompanying the decision are not necessarily infallible, except where the explanation is itself the dogmatic interpretation of a text of Scripture, or of a rule of Faith, or in as far as it fixes the meaning and extent of the definition. It is not always easy to draw the line between the definition and the other portions of the document. The ordinary rules for interpreting ecclesiastical documents must be applied. The commonest forms of ex cathedra decisions used at the present time are the following:—

1. The most solemn form is the Dogmatic Constitution, or Bull, in which the decrees are proposed expressly as ecclesiastical laws, and are sanctioned by heavy penalties; e.g. the Constitutions Unigenitus and Auctorem Fidei against the Jansenists, and the Bull Ineffabilis Deus on the Immaculate Conception.

2. Next in solemnity are Encyclical Letters, so far as they are of a dogmatic character. They resemble Constitutions and Bulls, but, as a rule, they impose no penalties. Some of them are couched in strictly juridical terms, such as the Encyclical Quanta cura, while others are more rhetorical in style. In the latter case it is not absolutely certain that the Pope speaks infallibly.

3. Apostolic Letters and Briefs, even when not directly addressed to the whole Church, must be considered as ex cathedra when they attach censures to the denial of certain doctrines, or when, like Encyclicals, they define or condemn in strict judicial language, or in equivalent terms. But it is often extremely difficult to determine whether these letters are dogmatic or only monitory and administrative. Doubts on the subject are sometimes removed by subsequent declarations.

4. Lastly, the Pope can speak ex cathedra by confirming and approving of the decisions of other tribunals, such as general or particular councils, or Roman Congregations. In ordinary cases, however, the approbation of a particular council is merely an act of supervision, and the decision of a Roman Congregation is not ex cathedra unless the Pope makes it his own.

A Manual Of Catholic Theology, Based On Scheeben's “Dogmatik”
Joseph Wilhelm, D.D., PHD. And Thomas B. Scannell, D.D.
With A Preface By Cardinal Manning

Vol. 1. The Sources Of Theological Knowledge, God, Creation And The Supernatural Order
Third Edition, Revised, London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Lt.
New York, Cincinnati, Chicago, Benziger Bros. 1906
Reply
(07-31-2009, 10:34 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote: The Pope's condemnation of error is an infallible judgment. So the idea that the "pre-conciliar Magisterium was wrong to condemn the errors" is absolutely false.

Precisely!
Reply
Quote from Zakhur:
"Heck man, I don't even think the whole council contains nearly false teachings!  It doesn't!  That's not how it damaged the Faith on earth.  The council damages the Faith of people in a much more subtle way.  It is thus far more dangerous than explicit heresy."

I understand you to mean what you said: that Vatican II 'is thus far more dangerous than explicit heresy'. In other words, the present Church is more than a heresy!
Reply
(08-01-2009, 01:36 AM)iggyting Wrote: Quote from Zakhur:
"Heck man, I don't even think the whole council contains nearly false teachings!  It doesn't!  That's not how it damaged the Faith on earth.  The council damages the Faith of people in a much more subtle way.  It is thus far more dangerous than explicit heresy."

I understand you to mean what you said: that Vatican II 'is thus far more dangerous than explicit heresy'. In other words, the present Church is more than a heresy!

Actually, you're a bit off.

I did not say "the present Church is more than a heresy."  However, that is a true statement, because the present Church, which is also the Church of the past and the future, is the True Church founded by Christ, and THAT Church is far more than a heresy as you well know.  It's much better than a heresy because it is the Truth. :)

You seem to think that Vatican II is the Church.  So if I criticise Vatican II, I criticise the Church.  The problem is that Vatican II represents a failure by the Church's LEADERS.  The Church and her leaders are not the same.  Her leaders are defectible, She is not.  The members of the Apostolic Succession are capable of failing the Church.  They are capable of being non-infallible if they so choose.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)