Errors of the Catechism of the Conciliar Church
(02-11-2012, 05:09 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(02-11-2012, 03:34 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(02-11-2012, 03:31 PM)alphonsusjr Wrote: Friends,

Let's be disciplined and get this thread on track by pointing to the errors of the Catechism of the Conciliar Church, relegating all tangential discussions (including personal attacks) to other threads. Thanks.

Your use of the word "errors" is problematic, as is your use of "conciliar".  You might be better off having the thread derailed.

Well, he is getting that distinction from the Cardinal speaking to Abp. Lefebvre on Paul VI's behalf (the Cardinal told Abp. Lefebvre that he was obliged to submit to the "conciliar church."). In fact, Paul VI made a distinction between the Catholic Church and the "Church of the council," as he called it. After repeatedly referring to the Catholic Church, he then goes on to say:

Etc.

Yes, INPEFESS has it exactly right. I wrongly took it for granted that readers here would know that I was using the characterization of Paul VI himself, along with John Paul II (see his introductory comments to the CCC), and so many others.
Reply
(02-11-2012, 09:27 PM)alphonsusjr Wrote: That was rude. Please stop derailing this thread.

As was pointed out directly above, your use of the word 'conciliar' im the phrase 'conciliar church' is indeed problematic.
Reply
(02-11-2012, 08:19 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(02-11-2012, 08:12 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: "Conciliar" is a fine word and refers to a Council. Therefore, talk of a "conciliar document" is kosher. Talking about "the conciliar Church," however, is a different matter. It'd make more sense to talk of the "post-conciliar Church" where "post-conciliar" is just an adjective and not implied as part of the noun, as if it's some inherently different thing than the "pre-conciliar Church."

Very good point, Vox. Of course, some of our friends are attempting to make the very point that there is an inherent difference between the 'pre-conciliar' and the 'post-conciliar' Church.

Now why on earth would anyone do such a thing if there was no inherent difference? . . . . . . December 22, 2005

The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council. It claims that they are the result of compromises in which, to reach unanimity, it was found necessary to keep and reconfirm many old things that are now pointless. However, the true spirit of the Council is not to be found in these compromises but instead in the impulses toward the new that are contained in the texts.

March 10, 2010

.........And while this idea of decline is repeated, another idea, this "spiritualistic utopianism" is also reiterated. Indeed, we know that after the Second Vatican Council some were convinced that everything was new, that there was a different Church, that the pre-Conciliar Church was finished and that we had another, totally "other" Church an anarchic utopianism!

1994
All of this is discussed in Familiaris consortio. The Letter to Families simply takes up and gives renewed expression to this heritage of the post-conciliar Church.

Guide to the training of future priests

The Church's post-conciliar teaching points out that, ideally, "communication" should result in "communion", whether the communication is interpersonal or "mass". . . . . .. . . Rights, duties and conditions for validity in the post-conciliar Magisterium.


FWIW, there are inherent differences so drastic that the "post conciliar" Church with it's "post conciliar Magisterium" and it's vast library of "post conciliar documents" and "post conciliar teachings" is, in fact, a different Church from the "pre conciliar" Church - which makes the title of this thread accurate.
Reply
(02-11-2012, 09:27 PM)alphonsusjr Wrote:
(02-11-2012, 03:34 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(02-11-2012, 03:31 PM)alphonsusjr Wrote: Friends,

Let's be disciplined and get this thread on track by pointing to the errors of the Catechism of the Conciliar Church, relegating all tangential discussions (including personal attacks) to other threads. Thanks.

Your use of the word "errors" is problematic, as is your use of "conciliar".  You might be better off having the thread derailed.

That was rude. Please stop derailing this thread.

I'm sorry for being rude.  It's frustrating to start a thread and not have people discuss the topic you want to discuss. 
Reply
Dude, it wasn't "rude." I've been wanting to say it for a long time, but I don't like how you often say "stick to thread, don't derail" etc. Its understandable if everyone is ignoring what you are asking, or if one poster is significantly trying to disrupt the thread, but these are threads with groups of people, and many don't follow an easy-flowing Q and A format.

Just my input.
Reply
(02-11-2012, 10:45 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Dude, it wasn't "rude."

Correct, it wasn't "rude." It was rude, as JayneK just agreed. By the way, thanks for that, JayneK. No hard feelings.

Reply
"Conciliarism" is defined as a General (Ecumenical) Council is superior to the Pope, thus negating his primacy in all things.  It was declared a heresy.  Are we finding a parallel situation in our present day definition of "conciliarist" church?

Conciliarism:
Quote:The theory that a general council of the Church is higher in authority than the Pope. It began in the fourteenth century, when respect for the papacy was undermined by confusion in Church and State. William of Ockham (1280-1349), in his battle with Pope John XXII (c. 1249-1334), questioned the divine institution of the primacy. Marsilius of Padua (1324) and John Jandun (1324) declared it was only a primacy of honor. During the great Western Schism (1378-1417) many otherwise reputable theologians, such as Peter of Ailly (1394) and John Gerson (1409) saw in the doctrine of the council's superiority over the Pope the only means of once more reuniting a divided Church. The viewpoint appeared that the Church in general was free from error, but the Church of Rome could err, and in fact had erred and fallen into heresy. The Council of Constance (1414-18), in its fourth and fifth sessions, declared for the superiority of council over Pope. However, these decisions never received papal approbation. In Gallicanism the conciliarist theory lived on for hundreds of years. Conciliarism was formally condemned by the First Vatican Council (1869-70), which defined papal primacy, declaring that the Pope had "full and supreme jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world." He therefore possesses not merely the principal part but "all the fullness of this supreme power." Moreover, this power is ordinary or constant, and immediate or direct; it extends the Pope's authority over each and all the churches, whether local or territorial, and over each and all the churches, whether local or territorial, and over each and all the pastors and the faithful (Denzinger, 3063).

In more recent times, conciliarism has been renewed by those who appeal to a "magisterium of theologians" or "consensus of the people of God" against ordinary or even solemn teachings of the popes. (Etym. Latin concilium, council, assembly for consultation.)
Reply
(02-11-2012, 06:12 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: INP, could you explain to me, either here on in PM, the a summary of the Church's teaching on Predestination. Not you're own opinion etc., but what Sancta Mater has said. I'd appreciate it.

Yes, I will try to do so in PM later this morning.
Reply
(02-10-2012, 01:05 AM)alphonsusjr Wrote: Friends,

Let's make a new catalogue of the errors of the Catechism of the Conciliar Church.

I'll begin with the notorious paragraph 841:

The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."[quoting the Conciliar document LG 16 & NA 3.]

As we know, Muslims worship a false God - Allah - not the Holy Trinity, which they expressly reject. Thus those who continue unto the end to worship the false God Allah shall be damned, not saved, "For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

Next, paragraphs 1257 and 1261:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Incredible!

They're refuted here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

Back to the subject matter.................


"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this [1]affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 [2] Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

847 [3]This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

    Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337


Errors:
[1] A defined dogma is effectively reduced to a meaningless formula since it is now merely an "affirmation, often repeated" - which sounds like CCC is describing nothing more than a "tired old saying".

[2] Re-formulated positively?  Other than to change it's meaning, what possible reason is there to *ever* re-formulate defined dogma, positively or otherwise?

[3] Now that the dogma is reduced to a re-formulated tired old saying, it teaches explicit error.  This error is explicitly teaching that salvation is indeed possible for those outside the Church - the exact opposite meaning of the defined dogma before positive re-formulation.

According to the CCC, the positively re-formulated affirmation, often repeated, now changes "Outside the Church there is no salvation" into "Outside the Church there is salvation" - or, to be more accurate - "Outside the Church salvation is achievable".

So alphonsusjr, we can see how CCC's 846 and 847 is a necessity for 841.  :pipe:
Reply
(02-10-2012, 03:48 AM)Parmandur Wrote: As to Allah, here are the words of a well-known priest on that topic:
Imagine two people with their television sets in two adjacent houses, tuned in to the same channel at the same time, watching the same news bulletin. One TV set is in excellent condition, and the image of the news broadcaster can be seen perfectly on the screen. The set (or antenna) in the next house is in poor condition, and the image comes out on the screen in a blurry, confused, and partly unrecognizable form. Are the two viewers seeing the same man? Of course they are—there are not two different men in the TV studio producing the two respective images. Because of the second viewer’s defective receiving mechanism, he does not see the true attributes and qualities of the broadcaster’s face.
Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S. Wrote:The analogy is problematic.  The "face" of God is Christ.  Those who do not see it, do not see the face of God.  It does not matter what Jews and Muslims, or pantheists for that matter, call the divinity that they worship.  The fact remains that unless they address their prayers through Christ, the prayers may not be heard.  No one comes to the Father except through the Son.  Father Harrison commits several mistakes through this analogy.  The first is to confuse a name with the substance of the thing signified.  On this forum, we could all agree to call ourselves "Warrenton."  (Not a bad idea, perhaps - it's such a great name).  However, all of us would not really be Warrenton.  There's only one real one, and even he is probably one too many.  :blush:  The Trinity is the substance of God, insofar as we mortals know it.  IF we don't recognize the substance, then we fail to recognize God.  Under Father Harrison's analogy, someone who thinks leaves are trees is correct, under the idea that a leaf is part of a tree.  What would we say, moreover, when the leaf lover then asserted that entities having leaves, roots and trunks are not trees? 

The second mistake is less significant, but important rhetorically.  Catholics have never said that Jews and Muslims were "the same as" pagans.  This, I think, is a straw man, and I used to see it alot in CAF.  I am not sure of its source.  Pagans deny that the Lord works in history - they deny the mighty deeds done in our fathers' days.  Jews and Muslims do not deny the deeds (in general - there are qualifications, I know).  But they deny the purpose of the deeds, the effect of th deeds.  IF someone says a certain killing is evil, and another says the same kiiling is good, it would be ridiculous to infer agreement from a single convergent fact. 




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D., is a prolific writer on Church issues, especially those having to do with the "Traditionalist" movement. He is a professor at the Pontifical University of Puerto Rico.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)