Reading Vatican II as break with tradition is heresy, prefect (Müller) says
#11
Some website said this. Is the site heretical now?
"A is Not A" and "2+2=5" Wrote:the kind of liberal or neo-conservative logic it takes to reconcile, for ex.: Mortalium Animos with the Assisi Events; Mediator Dei with the Novus Ordo Mass; Mirari Vos with the "spirit of Vatican II"; Testem Benevolentiae Nostra and Quas Primas with the typical post-conciliar view of government; Unam Sanctam with typical post-conciliar false ecumenism; and so forth.
Reply
#12
The problem with this pronouncement is that it relies on a false argument.  There is no significant progressive camp that advocates "leaving behind the Council."  Quite the contrary, in fact, as most of us are well aware.  Invariably, progressives (and I use this term for convenience only, not our of conviction  that it is accurate in any sense of the word) rely on Vatican 2 to support their iconoclastic approach to traditions, and their efforts to remake Catholicism in the mold of Unitarianism. 

This pronouncement sets up a false equivelency, pure and simple.
Reply
#13
(11-30-2012, 12:09 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote:
Fr. J. Ratzinger, 1967 Wrote:The debate on religious liberty will in later years be considered one of the most important events of a Council already rich enough in important events….Few things had hurt the Church so much in the last 150 years as its tenacious clinging to outmoded political-religious positions….In its thinking, the Church has stubbornly confused faith in the absolute truth manifest in Christ with insistence on an absolute secular status for the institutional Church….[Such] habits of thought have characterized Church teaching on the relations of Church and State right up to Vatican Council II.

[...]

[Dignitatis Humanae] attempts to emphasize continuity in the statements of the official Church on this issue.  It also says that it “leaves intact the traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and communities toward the true religion and the only Church of Christ” (n. 1).  The term “duty” here has doubtful application to communities in their relation to the Church. Later on in the Declaration, the text itself corrects and modifies these earlier statements, offering something new, something that is quite different from what is found, for example, in the statements of Pius XI and Pius XII. It would have been better to omit these compromising formulas or to reformulate them in line with the later text. Thus the introduction changes nothing in the text’s content; therefore, we need not regard it as anything more than a minor flaw.

But, but, doctrine develops, it doesn't change!

"Many believe in or claim that they believe in and hold fast to Catholic doctrine on such questions as... the relations between Church and State, religion and country... the social rights of Jesus Christ, Who is the Creator, Redeemer, and Lord not only of individuals but of nations.  In spite of these protestations, they speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.  There is a species of moral, legal, and social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn theological modernism" (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, n. 60f.).

Fr. Ratzinger:  The Church's teaching on the relations between herself and the State was outmoded and had harmed her.

Modernism:  The Church's teaching on the relations between herself and the State does not remain in full force.

:hmmm:
Reply
#14
Troubling, very very troubling.

Another nail in the coffin of the talks between Rome and the SSPX.
Reply
#15
(11-30-2012, 12:09 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote:
Fr. J. Ratzinger, 1967 Wrote:The debate on religious liberty will in later years be considered one of the most important events of a Council already rich enough in important events….Few things had hurt the Church so much in the last 150 years as its tenacious clinging to outmoded political-religious positions….In its thinking, the Church has stubbornly confused faith in the absolute truth manifest in Christ with insistence on an absolute secular status for the institutional Church….[Such] habits of thought have characterized Church teaching on the relations of Church and State right up to Vatican Council II.

[...]

[Dignitatis Humanae] attempts to emphasize continuity in the statements of the official Church on this issue. It also says that it “leaves intact the traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and communities toward the true religion and the only Church of Christ” (n. 1). The term “duty” here has doubtful application to communities in their relation to the Church. Later on in the Declaration, the text itself corrects and modifies these earlier statements, offering something new, something that is quite different from what is found, for example, in the statements of Pius XI and Pius XII. It would have been better to omit these compromising formulas or to reformulate them in line with the later text. Thus the introduction changes nothing in the text’s content; therefore, we need not regard it as anything more than a minor flaw.
The Institutional Church? Separate from the "real" Church? Why is it that such phrasing sounds so...protestant? The "real" Church is the invisible one of you and me, not the big bad Institution with its bastions and expensive buildings and structures and the like?
Maybe I am reading too much into this.
Reply
#16
I guess I am now a heretic in the new church.
Reply
#17
(11-30-2012, 01:48 PM)Petertherock Wrote: I guess I am now a heretic in the new church.

Nah pete yr just a separated brother. Bxvi. Will rejoice in you
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#18
(11-30-2012, 01:56 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(11-30-2012, 01:48 PM)Petertherock Wrote: I guess I am now a heretic in the new church.

Nah pete yr just a separated brother. Bxvi. Will rejoice in you

Get ready to be treated a lot better, Pete!
Reply
#19
This is very troubling, but not surprising.
Reply
#20
"permanent correspondence with the origin, not an adaption of whatever has been, which also can lead the wrong way"

I find this statement interesting. What it seems to say is that statement A and statement B are not to be reconciled with each other, but rather reconciled with the third "original". That is, the original teaching, the actual deposit of the Faith, is always correspondenced with in each age. I wonder how this concept affects reconciliation of texts, since the point of departure is not 19th and 20th century Popes, but the deposit of Faith in which they and the more recent statements need to be in correspondence. I do think the concept of reform in continuity is true and related to development of doctrine. The specifics of it I think need more fleshing out.


(11-30-2012, 12:22 PM)Warrenton Wrote: The problem with this pronouncement is that it relies on a false argument.  There is no significant progressive camp that advocates "leaving behind the Council."  Quite the contrary, in fact, as most of us are well aware.  Invariably, progressives (and I use this term for convenience only, not our of conviction  that it is accurate in any sense of the word) rely on Vatican 2 to support their iconoclastic approach to traditions, and their efforts to remake Catholicism in the mold of Unitarianism. 

This pronouncement sets up a false equivelency, pure and simple.

No, in fact he is right. They don't view Vatican II as the focal point of their movement, but use it as the springboard and original justification. They see the need to go beyond the Council and movee forward in its "spirit". They say that the Council didn't go far enough because of the necessary compromise with the conservatives. They say that the ambiguity, statements with both sides express (e.g., Latin is the norm, but vernacular is allowed, etc.), was not sufficient, and to take the spirit and make the final move. The Cardinal is saying this is their rupture. The spirit is primary, not the Council itself. just like Protestants, they'll quote from their "bible", but that doesn't mean it really is the core of their movement. They typically call for a new Council. So, ultimately, they do want to leave behind the Council.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)