Reading Vatican II as break with tradition is heresy, prefect (Müller) says
#51
Vox, I don't know how you can say that when Dominus Iesus says: "The Church of Christ is present and operative also in these [non-Catholic] Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the primacy, which, according to the will of God, objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.""

Also, look at SouthPaw's signature. Apparently, Bartholomew I, who is a heretic and schismatic, is a "pastor" alongside Benedict in the "Church of Christ."

Finally, as various websites, including Tradition in Action noted: "The discussion over the Declaration Dominus Jesu seems to be coming to a close. After having been exalted by some as a new Syllabus of errors for our days, the party is over for the pseudo-conservatives and for the hoopla of the press. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger himself, who is responsible for the document, took upon himself the charge of clarifying the question. In an interview in the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, whose principal parts were reproduced in L'Osservatore Romano, Ratzinger explained that Vatican II did not use Pius XII's expression according to which "the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church of Jesus Christ." Instead, it preferred the expression "the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church ruled by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him," because, he said, it wished to affirm "that the being of the Church as such is a larger identity than the Roman Catholic Church." But this does not mean that it is so in a partial or lesser way, the Cardinal added. (Zenit Internet Dispatch, October 8)."
Reply
#52
Here is the interview of which Phillip mentioned: http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/obdomihs.htm

Cardinal Ratzinger Wrote:It might be that the term "elements" was not the best choice.  In any case, its sense was to indicate an ecclesiological vision in which the Church does not exist in structures but in the event of preaching and the administration of the sacraments. . . .  In his Encyclical Pius XII said: the Roman Catholic Church "is" the one Church of Jesus Christ.  This seems to express a complete identity, which is why there was no Church outside the Catholic community.  However, this is not the case: according to Catholic teaching, which Pius XII obviously also shared, the local Churches of the Eastern Church separated from Rome are authentic local Churches; the communities that sprang from the Reformation are constituted differently, as I just said.  In these the Church exists at the moment when the event takes place. . . .  If the Council had merely wished to say that the Church of Jesus Christ is also in the Catholic Church, it would have said something banal.  The Council would have clearly contradicted the entire history of the Church's faith, which no Council Father had in mind. . . .  The concept expressed by "is" (to be) is far broader than that expressed by "to subsist".  "To subsist" is a very precise way of being, that is, to be as a subject which exists in itself.  Thus the Council Fathers meant to say that the being of the Church as such is a broader entity than the Roman Catholic Church, but within the latter it acquires, in an incomparable way, the character of a true and proper subject.

"Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing" (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 27).

And from an earlier post:

"Ecclesia R. catholica sola est vera Christi Ecclesia.  De fide.
"Ecclesiæ separatæ non sunt vera Christi Ecclesia.  De fide."
(Very Rev. Tanquerey, Synopsis Theologiæ Dogmaticæ, t. I, sec. 761, 763, p. 511f., 24th Ed.).
Reply
#53
The arguments 50 years after the council of what "subsists" really means is proof of the overall failure of the Council to adhere to John XXIII's stated command that the faith be presented in its integrity in language accessible to modern man. 

Whether it's a break with tradition is actually a secondary concern.  Vatican II is in its essence a break with Man despite its fawning over humankind, society and its ridiculous implementation. 

Reply
#54
(12-20-2012, 10:37 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Here is the interview of which Phillip mentioned: http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/obdomihs.htm

Cardinal Ratzinger Wrote:It might be that the term "elements" was not the best choice.  In any case, its sense was to indicate an ecclesiological vision in which the Church does not exist in structures but in the event of preaching and the administration of the sacraments. . . .  In his Encyclical Pius XII said: the Roman Catholic Church "is" the one Church of Jesus Christ.  This seems to express a complete identity, which is why there was no Church outside the Catholic community.  However, this is not the case: according to Catholic teaching, which Pius XII obviously also shared, the local Churches of the Eastern Church separated from Rome are authentic local Churches; the communities that sprang from the Reformation are constituted differently, as I just said.  In these the Church exists at the moment when the event takes place. . . .  If the Council had merely wished to say that the Church of Jesus Christ is also in the Catholic Church, it would have said something banal.  The Council would have clearly contradicted the entire history of the Church's faith, which no Council Father had in mind. . . .  The concept expressed by "is" (to be) is far broader than that expressed by "to subsist".  "To subsist" is a very precise way of being, that is, to be as a subject which exists in itself.  Thus the Council Fathers meant to say that the being of the Church as such is a broader entity than the Roman Catholic Church, but within the latter it acquires, in an incomparable way, the character of a true and proper subject.

"Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing" (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 27).

And from an earlier post:

"Ecclesia R. catholica sola est vera Christi Ecclesia.  De fide.
"Ecclesiæ separatæ non sunt vera Christi Ecclesia.  De fide."
(Very Rev. Tanquerey, Synopsis Theologiæ Dogmaticæ, t. I, sec. 761, 763, p. 511f., 24th Ed.).

Thanks for providing the entire quote.
Reply
#55
You are most welcome, Phillip.

As Cardinal Ratzinger's name appears at the bottom of the 1992 and 2000 CDF documents which deal with ecclesiology (he was its Prefect, after all), is it not fair to assume that he of all people would know the authentic meaning of "subsistit in," "true particular Churches" and Eucharistic ecclesiology (adapted from Eastern Orthodox theology)?

In 2001, he spoke of theologians and Vatican II "correcting" the Church's teaching on the Mystical Body of Christ and its "narrow" understanding of membership.  He noted that the term, "People of God" allowed the Council to speak of the "intermediate degrees of belonging," as opposed to there being "members" and "non-members" (Mystici Corporis Christi).

http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfeccv2.htm

Vatican II and the subsequent CDF documents do indeed contradict the ecclesiological teaching of the Catholic Church.  They do not develop its doctrine, because the Church was certain that she alone was Christ's Church, with no particular "wounded" Churches outside of her.  She was quite certain about the differences between her and the separated [schismatic] Churches and how there was no communion between them, as they did not share unity of faith nor unity of government.  Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius XI condemned the notion of there being a federation of churches, while the Vatican now both affirms and denies it (cf. Dominus Issus).
Reply
#56
(11-30-2012, 01:22 PM)Lateran15 Wrote: Troubling, very very troubling.

Another nail in the coffin of the talks between Rome and the SSPX.

Does it really matter how many nails one has in a coffin?

The talks are dead that much is obvious.  B16 is an old man and will be in his own coffin before they could ever be restarted.

He cannot have long to go now.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)