Osama didn't need to convert says the Vatican
#11
(05-05-2011, 10:35 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: Proof again VII wasn't infallible!

VII=  An ambiguous ball of mess with a smattering of diabolical disorientation all wrapped up in one!
Reply
#12
The word "dialogue" has really, literally been making me nauseated as of lately.  :puke:
Reply
#13
(05-05-2011, 12:37 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote:
(05-05-2011, 12:26 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-05-2011, 10:35 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: Proof again VII wasn't infallible!

Or maybe it's proof that the article in the OP was misrepresenting the teaching of Vatican II.  There are plenty of liberal Catholics around who will state that VII taught things that it did not actually teach.  When somebody makes a claim like the one in that article, it needs to be verified.

Nevertheless, VII was erroneous and opened the door to a multitude of errors; even if the errors were not explicitly stated. The pastoral nature of that ecumenical council was perhaps in good form, but it ended up doing the exact opposite of what it was meant to do. Even Paul VI and JPII allude to the wrongs that resulted either directly or indirectly from Vatican II. I am still trying to figure out how to take that council. It is a thorn in my side and dragging me down.

I have finally settled on my view of VII, influenced by the erudite Anglican Fr. Hunwicke (who is likely soon to become Catholic).

Basically I think it's pointless to argue about it's validity or whatever.  It was valid, but pastoral, made a bunch of suggestions.  It was over 40 years ago, and a lot has changed, so it's not relevant any more.  I'm content to let the people obessess with it to die out, and everything will be alright in the end.

I think of VII the way I think of Lateran 3 or plenty of other councils -- they were valid, but just not so relevant anymore.  There's no rule about "always focus on the most recent council."  We should focus on the most important ones, and history will show these were Chalcedon, Ephesus, Nicea, Trent, and several others.

Also if we do want to spend time on recent Magisterial teachings that actually are relevant to our current time in 2011, we should be talking about Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Redemptionius Sacramentum, Dominus Jesus, the CDF's document on procured abortion, Veritatis Splendor, Summorum Pontificum -- these are all actually very relevant to our problems today.

Especially SP -- we think of it as a legal document, but the Pope also taught that once sacred always sacred.  What do we call the heresy that denies this?  Modernism I guess, but modernism is too broad.
Reply
#14
(05-11-2011, 10:48 AM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: I have finally settled on my view of VII, influenced by the erudite Anglican Fr. Hunwicke (who is likely soon to become Catholic).

Basically I think it's pointless to argue about it's validity or whatever.  It was valid, but pastoral, made a bunch of suggestions.  It was over 40 years ago, and a lot has changed, so it's not relevant any more.  I'm content to let the people obessess with it to die out, and everything will be alright in the end.

I think of VII the way I think of Lateran 3 or plenty of other councils -- they were valid, but just not so relevant anymore.  There's no rule about "always focus on the most recent council."  We should focus on the most important ones, and history will show these were Chalcedon, Ephesus, Nicea, Trent, and several others.

Also if we do want to spend time on recent Magisterial teachings that actually are relevant to our current time in 2011, we should be talking about Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Redemptionius Sacramentum, Dominus Jesus, the CDF's document on procured abortion, Veritatis Splendor, Summorum Pontificum -- these are all actually very relevant to our problems today.

Especially SP -- we think of it as a legal document, but the Pope also taught that once sacred always sacred.  What do we call the heresy that denies this?  Modernism I guess, but modernism is too broad.

This is an excellent approach.  (My husband has started reading FE and you are on my "make sure you read posts by . . ."  list.)
Reply
#15
JayneK Wrote:Or maybe it's proof that the article in the OP was misrepresenting the teaching of Vatican II.  There are plenty of liberal Catholics around who will state that VII taught things that it did not actually teach.  When somebody makes a claim like the one in that article, it needs to be verified.

We can see clearly that the representation and interpretation to be a direct contradiction of the Council's Decree Ad Gentes. 

JayneK Wrote:I am not denying that there are genuine problems with Vatican II.  It is just that we need to be somewhat suspicious of any claims made about it and verify them for ourselves.  I often see people saying that VII taught things, but on investigation their claims are false.


We can start with Pope Paul VI's widely quoted statement, "The smoke of Satan had entered the Church," allegedly made in his sermon on the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul on June 29, 1972.  There's even a direct quote in the Italian:  da qualche fessura sia entrato il fumo di Satana nel tempio di Dio, there is no evidence he actually said it, mainly because this sermon has been archived and there is no access to it to verify if this is true or not.  Another statement on the same line of thought:  "“We believe … that something preternatural has come into the world specifically to disturb, to suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council, and to prevent the Church from breaking out in a hymn of joy for having recovered in fullness the awareness of herself" (Crediamo … in qualcosa di preternaturale venunto nel mondo proprio per turbare, per soffocare i frutti del Concilio Ecumenico, e per impedire che la Chiesa prorompesse nell’inno della gioia di aver riavuto in pienezza la coscienza di sé)

However, conspiracy theorists spin a web on this statement.  If true, I would look at it as a statement made on the new Liturgy, the Novus Ordo Missae, which in 1972, just about only three years from its promulgation, abuses were already abounding.  Then perhaps, the truth of the statement has come to fore.  The devil has actually entered and had been in residence for quite sometime.
Reply
#16
(05-04-2011, 11:27 PM)Petertherock Wrote: And from the US Bishops who are more concerned with scrutiny of Muslims...

US bishop concerned about ‘intense scrutiny’ of Muslims

Catholic World News
May 04, 2011

An auxiliary bishop of Baltimore has expressed concern about the treatment of Muslims in the United States.

“Our dialogue has taken on renewed urgency since we met last year,” said Bishop Denis Madden, co-chair of the Mid-Atlantic Catholic-Muslim Dialogue, which met in April on the topic of religious education. “Because of our past and present experience as an immigrant people, we Catholics are very sensitive to our Muslim brothers and sisters when they come under intense scrutiny by the mass media or government officials,” a likely reference to Rep. Peter King’s congressional hearings on radical Islam.


Source(s): Mid-Atlantic Catholic-Muslim Dialogue Discusses Principles of Religious Education, Examines Interreligious Programs (USCCB) http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2011/11-089.shtml

Is it possible to hate a WORD?? If so, the word "DIALOGUE" has become a source of great pain for me.  It has been so overused & as far as I can see has had no result.
Webster's defines that word as: an exchange of ideas and opinions..... Of course, I......for one, am a Catholic who is NOT very sensitive to our Muslim "brothers & sisters", but AM sensitive to those who had loved ones in the twin towers.

#1. I do not know personally ONE Muslim.
#2, Building a Mosque at the foot of where 3,000 innocent Americans were killed by Muslim extrememists, was either a slap in the face to every American.......OR.........an act of some very tactless, stupid person/people.
#3. I have not heard enough from the top Muslim clergy on the "sinfulness" of Jihad........directed towards innocent civilians. Where is their OUTRAGE??

Reply
#17
(05-11-2011, 10:52 AM)JayneK Wrote: This is an excellent approach.  (My husband has started reading FE and you are on my "make sure you read posts by . . ."  list.)

Thank you!  I hope I can live up to the designation.  :)
Reply
#18
(05-11-2011, 10:48 AM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: Basically I think it's pointless to argue about it's validity or whatever.  It was valid, but pastoral, made a bunch of suggestions.  It was over 40 years ago, and a lot has changed, so it's not relevant any more.  I'm content to let the people obsesses with it to die out, and everything will be alright in the end.

As much as I would love for it to die out, VII is the Achilles heal of ecumenical councils. If it was a valid council, it was still ecumenical, which would make it part of the magesterium to be obeyed. What is frustrating and terrifying is that it is so opposed to prior teachings, as well as the way prior teachings were taught (i.e. Ambiguous vs. Straightforward). VII is a large amount of ammunition for the modernists; they can use it to say; "but the church teaches..."

Quote:I think of VII the way I think of Lateran 3 or plenty of other councils -- they were valid, but just not so relevant anymore.  There's no rule about "always focus on the most recent council."  We should focus on the most important ones, and history will show these were Chalcedon, Ephesus, Nicaea, Trent, and several others.

I disagree, I think that all Ecumenical Councils were important for their time and situation, I think that they are always valid. VII sticks out because it just doesn't seem to have a purpose. All other Ecumenical Councils of history were made to combat some problem within the Church. They all were successful. VII seemed to do the opposite, by directly or indirectly consenting to the problem.
Reply
#19
(05-11-2011, 01:56 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: I disagree, I think that all Ecumenical Councils were important for their time and situation, I think that they are always valid. VII sticks out because it just doesn't seem to have a purpose. All other Ecumenical Councils of history were made to combat some problem within the Church. They all were successful. VII seemed to do the opposite, by directly or indirectly consenting to the problem.

I'm not sure you're historically correct.  Some councils really didn't have much of an influence (look through the list!) or had a narrow influence.  In our very quickly changing world, I think it can be said that the world Vatican II was called for does not exist anymore, and we can accept it's valid but still ignore it.

You mention it's teaching but it didn't teach much at all, just gave suggestions.  An ecumenical council forbade kneeling, we ignore that now rightly.  Another (Trent) opposed the vernacular, we still got it eventually, and so we can go back.  (That is, the fact that we have the vernacular against Trent's suggestion shows that you don't have to "obey" an ecumenical council, all you have to do is accept something it says we have to accept as revelation).  Even when VII did teach something (e.g. episcopal consecration is the 3rd degree of the sacrament of Holy Orders) it does not do it in the traditional 'anathema' formulation, and it's not a big deal, I can accept that even if I still use the word "consecration" when referring to new bishops.
Reply
#20
(05-11-2011, 02:04 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: I'm not sure you're historically correct.  Some councils really didn't have much of an influence (look through the list!) or had a narrow influence.  In our very quickly changing world, I think it can be said that the world Vatican II was called for does not exist anymore, and we can accept it's valid but still ignore it.

There was something I remember hearing about how we can choose not to believe in certain lower levels of Teaching, based on some justifiable reason. I guess we could do that for VII. No, I think that all councils were important for their times, and in some way (in varying degrees) remains relevant today.

Quote: You mention it's teaching but it didn't teach much at all, just gave suggestions.


There were many things in the council that are taught: "The Church believes...". Are we not supposed to follow those teachings, if we are not to be heretics and schismatics?

Quote:  An ecumenical council forbade kneeling, we ignore that now rightly.  Another (Trent) opposed the vernacular, we still got it eventually, and so we can go back.  (That is, the fact that we have the vernacular against Trent's suggestion shows that you don't have to "obey" an ecumenical council, all you have to do is accept something it says we have to accept as revelation).


Forasmuch as there are certain persons who kneel on the Lord's Day and in the days of Pentecost, therefore, to the intent that all things may be uniformly observed everywhere (in every parish), it seems good to the holy Synod that prayer be made to God standing.- Canon 20, Nicaea 1

As you said in the following quote, no anathema was attached. This is a matter of discipline, that can be changed corrrect?

Quote:  Even when VII did teach something (e.g. episcopal consecration is the 3rd degree of the sacrament of Holy Orders) it does not do it in the traditional 'anathema' formulation, and it's not a big deal, I can accept that even if I still use the word "consecration" when referring to new bishops.


Yes, thank God for that! The trouble is, that many heretics will follow no teaching but Vatican II, and if you disagree with something, they basically anathematize you.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)