Holy Father: If You Don't Agree, Then Just Get Out
#41
(08-30-2012, 04:08 PM)ggreg Wrote: They assume we get some sort of delight or thrill out of throwing stones at the Pope, when for nearly every Trads I know nothing could be further from the truth.

This is a very important and often over-looked point.  Living with the crisis is monumentally difficult and I've only been privy for a few years.  I wish I could manipulate my brain into making it disappear but unfortunately I cannot.
Reply
#42
(08-30-2012, 03:30 PM)ggreg Wrote:
(08-30-2012, 03:08 PM)JayneK Wrote: I have seen no sign that Pope Benedict believes in mutable truth and evolving dogma as it is rejected in the Oath against Modernism.  He does believe in legitimate development of doctrine, as orthodox Catholics normally do.  A person with little training in theology might not be able to tell these apart.


Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . .  [Oath Against Modernism]

If the meaning has not changed Jayne, then WTF are any of us doing here?  Clearly from the fruits of Vatican II some of the meanings to some of the doctrines must have changed or Assisi I and II would not be possible.  If it was a "legitimate development" of doctrine how could it possibly spawn the disasterous and radical change it did.  Did the Holy Spirit fall asleep and stop guarding the Church?  Did The Holy Spirit allow a massive falling away because of "legitimate developments"?

None of these questions make any sense.  You seem to be making some false assumptions.  I am not even sure where to start explaining it to you.

(08-30-2012, 03:30 PM)ggreg Wrote: Here are two of +Ratzinger's denials of the nature of truth, which winds up convincing people that God Himself is mutable--or, at the very least, so obscurant in His Revelation that it is possible for men to arrive at different conclusions at different times given the "complexity" of what and how He has Revealed:

   The text [of the Second Vatican Council] also presents the various forms of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms -- perhaps for the first time with this clarity -- that there are decisions of the Magisterium that cannot be a last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. Its nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times have influenced, may need further ramifications.


   “In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from immersion in the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they become obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at the proper moment.” (L'Osservatore Romano, July 2, 1990)

  It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.

   On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change.
(Christmas Address to Curia, December 22, 2005.)

Neither of these statements is a denial of the nature of truth.  I think you must not be understanding something properly
   
(08-30-2012, 03:30 PM)ggreg Wrote: These beliefs have been condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church. Condemned. One who asserts these things publicly commits grave crimes against the Faith, misrepresenting the nature of God Himself and thus misleading souls into believing that God is mutable or at least so obscure in His Revelation that we can know nothing about Him with certainty on a permanent basis, making  a mockery of the Act of Faith.

These are not condemned beliefs.  This is orthodox Catholic teaching.

(08-30-2012, 03:30 PM)ggreg Wrote: Here are some simple reminders of how the positions held by +Ratzinger, who exemplifies in his very person the apostate ethos of conciliarism, have  been condemned by the Catholic Church:

   Hence, that meaning of the sacred dogmata is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be an abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.... If anyone says that it is possible that at some given time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmata propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has always understood and understands: let him be anathema. [Vatican Council, 1870.]

The statements you quoted do not contradict this.

(08-30-2012, 03:30 PM)ggreg Wrote: Jayne - Is Divine Revelation imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason?

If you are seriously interested in understanding what is meant by legitimate development of doctrine, I will look around for some beginner level resources for you.  If this is just rhetoric, I won't bother.  Do you really want to learn about this?
Reply
#43
(08-30-2012, 04:08 PM)ggreg Wrote: What makes me laugh about these popolators and defenders of the indefensible is that they've arrived at Tradition by seeing contradictions and errors in their false faiths or in their Novus Ordo parishes, dioceses and nation states.

If you are talking about me, then man up and do it by name.  If this is just some rant about something you have imagined, it is not worth responding to.
Reply
#44
(08-30-2012, 03:30 PM)ggreg Wrote:    “In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from immersion in the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they become obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at the proper moment.” (L'Osservatore Romano, July 2, 1990)

So basically he's saying that modernism is no longer a heresy, but the Church was right to declare it one at the time.
Reply
#45
It's almost Pythonesque, in its madness Graham.  It would be funny if people were not murdering their children partly as a result of being so confused.
Reply
#46
(08-30-2012, 04:41 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(08-30-2012, 04:08 PM)ggreg Wrote: What makes me laugh about these popolators and defenders of the indefensible is that they've arrived at Tradition by seeing contradictions and errors in their false faiths or in their Novus Ordo parishes, dioceses and nation states.

If you are talking about me, then man up and do it by name.  If this is just some rant about something you have imagined, it is not worth responding to.

If I was talking exclusively about you, my darling Jayne, I would have added "wannabe sophists" to the above list.

There are plenty of other people on this forum though who refuse to engage with the facts so why would I single you out?
Reply
#47
(08-30-2012, 04:38 PM)JayneK Wrote: I think you must not be understanding something properly.

But don't you see the slippery slope you're on?

Both of these statements are infallibly true: "X is true; X is not true. X is an eternal truth as it was experienced in historical context A. X is not true is an eternal truth as it was experienced in historical context B. If you disagree, you just must not understand. These are complex subjects, you know, and you're just a lay person. Just submit your reason and all contradictions disappear." Of course they do! There can be no contradiction without reason!

That's exactly what St. Pius X taught that Modernists say when you show them the error of what they are saying: "You must not understand what I mean."

Rather than actually demonstrate the philosophical consistency of the doctrine proposed as well as where the Church has always taught this doctrine, you are using the same excuse as they to argue that there really isn't any contradiction involved.
Reply
#48
(08-30-2012, 04:38 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(08-30-2012, 03:30 PM)ggreg Wrote:
(08-30-2012, 03:08 PM)JayneK Wrote: I have seen no sign that Pope Benedict believes in mutable truth and evolving dogma as it is rejected in the Oath against Modernism.  He does believe in legitimate development of doctrine, as orthodox Catholics normally do.  A person with little training in theology might not be able to tell these apart.


Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . .  [Oath Against Modernism]

If the meaning has not changed Jayne, then WTF are any of us doing here?  Clearly from the fruits of Vatican II some of the meanings to some of the doctrines must have changed or Assisi I and II would not be possible.  If it was a "legitimate development" of doctrine how could it possibly spawn the disasterous and radical change it did.  Did the Holy Spirit fall asleep and stop guarding the Church?  Did The Holy Spirit allow a massive falling away because of "legitimate developments"?

None of these questions make any sense.  You seem to be making some false assumptions.  I am not even sure where to start explaining it to you.

(08-30-2012, 03:30 PM)ggreg Wrote: Here are two of +Ratzinger's denials of the nature of truth, which winds up convincing people that God Himself is mutable--or, at the very least, so obscurant in His Revelation that it is possible for men to arrive at different conclusions at different times given the "complexity" of what and how He has Revealed:

   The text [of the Second Vatican Council] also presents the various forms of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms -- perhaps for the first time with this clarity -- that there are decisions of the Magisterium that cannot be a last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. Its nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times have influenced, may need further ramifications.


   “In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from immersion in the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they become obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at the proper moment.” (L'Osservatore Romano, July 2, 1990)

  It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.

   On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change.
(Christmas Address to Curia, December 22, 2005.)

Neither of these statements is a denial of the nature of truth.  I think you must not be understanding something properly
   
(08-30-2012, 03:30 PM)ggreg Wrote: These beliefs have been condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church. Condemned. One who asserts these things publicly commits grave crimes against the Faith, misrepresenting the nature of God Himself and thus misleading souls into believing that God is mutable or at least so obscure in His Revelation that we can know nothing about Him with certainty on a permanent basis, making  a mockery of the Act of Faith.

These are not condemned beliefs.  This is orthodox Catholic teaching.

(08-30-2012, 03:30 PM)ggreg Wrote: Here are some simple reminders of how the positions held by +Ratzinger, who exemplifies in his very person the apostate ethos of conciliarism, have  been condemned by the Catholic Church:

   Hence, that meaning of the sacred dogmata is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be an abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.... If anyone says that it is possible that at some given time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmata propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has always understood and understands: let him be anathema. [Vatican Council, 1870.]

The statements you quoted do not contradict this.

(08-30-2012, 03:30 PM)ggreg Wrote: Jayne - Is Divine Revelation imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason?

If you are seriously interested in understanding what is meant by legitimate development of doctrine, I will look around for some beginner level resources for you.  If this is just rhetoric, I won't bother.  Do you really want to learn about this?

You basically just keeping saying "nothing is wrong with that" without anything to back up your point.

You provided no substantive response to ggreg's post.  You keep saying he's "missing something" beause you don't like the conclusions he's making but can't tell us what you think he's missing.

Is it possible you disagree more because you don't want his conclusions to be true than that you truly believe them not to be?
Reply
#49
(08-30-2012, 05:09 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-30-2012, 04:38 PM)JayneK Wrote: I think you must not be understanding something properly.

But don't you see the slippery slope you're on?

Both of these statements are infallibly true: "X is true; X is not true. X is an eternal truth as it was experienced in historical context A. X is not true is an eternal truth as it was experienced in historical context B. If you disagree, you just must not understand. These are complex subjects, you know, and you're just a lay person. Just submit your reason and all contradictions disappear." Of course they do! There can be no contradiction without reason!

That's exactly what St. Pius X taught that Modernists say when you show them the error of what they are saying: "You must not understand what I mean."

Rather than actually demonstrate the philosophical consistency of the doctrine proposed as well as where the Church has always taught this doctrine, you are using the same excuse as they to argue that there really isn't any contradiction involved.

Selective Deconstructionism of the Laity.  We all have no real idea what Rome is saying so we must wait for clarification after clarification and then submit blindly.  If there seems to be a contradiction then we just don't understand and ought to be leaving Rome to think for us anyway.
Reply
#50
(08-30-2012, 05:16 PM)Walty Wrote: Selective Deconstructionism of the Laity.  We all have no real idea what Rome is saying so we must wait for clarification after clarification and then submit blindly.  If there seems to be a contradiction then we just don't understand and ought to be leaving Rome to think for us anyway.

Right. The clear and simple Faith (which is part of what constitutes the Church's mark of Catholicity [universality]) is slowly eroded by this process. The clear and straightforward teachings of the Faith must be absolutely certain, knowable, and affirmable. How all of various affirmed doctrines are reconciled is complex (yet not contradictory), but the certainty of them is clear. What is being proposed here is that it is somewhat true, or only true in a certain sense, so it needs to be qualified and re-qualified in every age as needed. Catholics often confuse these two distinct propositions: the former being Catholic; the latter being Modernistic.

I really can't post this paragraph enough:
Mortalium Animos Wrote:8. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth. Jesus Christ sent His Apostles into the whole world in order that they might permeate all nations with the Gospel faith, and, lest they should err, He willed beforehand that they should be taught by the Holy Ghost:[15] has then this doctrine of the Apostles completely vanished away, or sometimes been obscured, in the Church, whose ruler and defense is God Himself? If our Redeemer plainly said that His Gospel was to continue not only during the times of the Apostles, but also till future ages, is it possible that the object of faith should in the process of time become so obscure and uncertain, that it would be necessary to-day to tolerate opinions which are even incompatible one with another? If this were true, we should have to confess that the coming of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, and the perpetual indwelling of the same Spirit in the Church, and the very preaching of Jesus Christ, have several centuries ago, lost all their efficacy and use, to affirm which would be blasphemy. But the Only-begotten Son of God, when He commanded His representatives to teach all nations, obliged all men to give credence to whatever was made known to them by "witnesses preordained by God,"[16] and also confirmed His command with this sanction: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned."[17] These two commands of Christ, which must be fulfilled, the one, namely, to teach, and the other to believe, cannot even be understood, unless the Church proposes a complete and easily understood teaching, and is immune when it thus teaches from all danger of erring. In this matter, those also turn aside from the right path, who think that the deposit of truth such laborious trouble, and with such lengthy study and discussion, that a man's life would hardly suffice to find and take possession of it; as if the most merciful God had spoken through the prophets and His Only-begotten Son merely in order that a few, and those stricken in years, should learn what He had revealed through them, and not that He might inculcate a doctrine of faith and morals, by which man should be guided through the whole course of his moral life.

That certainty, clarity, and knowability of the Faith is integral to the religion revealed by God and the visibility of the Church that alone is its divine deposit.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)