Vatican: FI seminary closed, no ordinations for one year, oath accepting NO
#31

Skarga, this is a site for traditional Catholics (defined here: http://www.fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html ). If you have questions and such, or commentary that doesn't involve trying to change our minds, fine. But otherwise, don't use this forum to argue trads out of our positions. We get that everywhere else on the internet; it's not going to happen here. Besides which, you're incorrect about  there being anything like "unanimously and universally [promulgation of] the same teachings on faith and morals for over half a century." It simply isn't so.



Reply
#32
(12-13-2013, 06:38 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: Skarga, this is a site for traditional Catholics (defined here: http://www.fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html ). If you have questions and such, or commentary that doesn't involve trying to change our minds, fine. But otherwise, don't use this forum to argue trads out of our positions. We get that everywhere else on the internet; it's not going to happen here. Besides which, you're incorrect about  there being anything like "unanimously and universally [promulgation of] the same teachings on faith and morals for over half a century." It simply isn't so.

Sorry if I broke the rules.

How is religious liberty not universally taught? Franco's Spain submitted to this. All of South America submitted to this. The USA had novenas for religious liberty earlier this year. The popes since Paul VI have taught and enforced this teaching. And I don't count excommunicated Archbishops like Lefebvre and Thuc in this argument. It's taught in every seminary, catechism, etc. since Vatican II. Opus Dei even changes their older catechisms/text books to include this teaching and removes references to Roman Catholic exclusivity in matters of state religion. If that isn't universality then I don't know what is.
Reply
#33
(12-13-2013, 06:29 PM)Skarga Wrote: We must pray for understanding if we don't understand points of doctrine that are seemingly different than that of old. In times of doubt we must humbly pray and be obedient in order to sail the storm.

This would have sufficed as an answer to my question.

Thank you.
Reply
#34
(12-13-2013, 07:00 PM)Skarga Wrote:
(12-13-2013, 06:38 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: Skarga, this is a site for traditional Catholics (defined here: http://www.fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html ). If you have questions and such, or commentary that doesn't involve trying to change our minds, fine. But otherwise, don't use this forum to argue trads out of our positions. We get that everywhere else on the internet; it's not going to happen here. Besides which, you're incorrect about  there being anything like "unanimously and universally [promulgation of] the same teachings on faith and morals for over half a century." It simply isn't so.

Sorry if I broke the rules.

How is religious liberty not universally taught? Franco's Spain submitted to this. All of South America submitted to this. The USA had novenas for religious liberty earlier this year. The popes since Paul VI have taught and enforced this teaching. And I don't count excommunicated Archbishops like Lefebvre and Thuc in this argument. It's taught in every seminary, catechism, etc. since Vatican II. Opus Dei even changes their older catechisms/text books to include this teaching and removes references to Roman Catholic exclusivity in matters of state religion. If that isn't universality then I don't know what is.

As Vatican II points out in Christus Dominus and Lumen Gentium, collegiality is only exercised when the Pope calls the bishops specifically to a "collegiate act". I agree you don't know what "universality" is. As to Franco he changed nothing in Spain with respect to the position of the Church. It was the Spanish bishops who suggested change but that did not come until after the death of Franco. Theology and history are not your strong suits to put it mildly.


C.
Reply
#35
(12-11-2013, 08:09 PM)Skarga Wrote: Vatican II is irrelevant to this discussion. Let us pretend Vatican II never happened but everything in history happened as it did today. In this reality, things like ecumenism and religious liberty are still infallible because, I said before, "The Bishops have exercised their infallible teaching power in an ordinary manner in their dioceses, in moral unity with the pope, by unanimously and universally promulgating the same teachings on faith and morals for over half a century regarding these issues." Practically every diocese in every continent (including "conservative" Africa and Poland) have ecumenical meetings, just like the popes for the last 40+ years. They all have interfaith dialogues, just like JPII and Benedict XVI. The CCC teaches these teachings as being part of the authentic Catholic faith. Seminaries all around the world teach these things.  The worlds bishops proposing definitively, dispersed, but in unison, in union with Pope, teach infallibly.

Vatican II isn't the issue here. The issue here is that there is an unanimous and universal agreement with the worlds bishops, in union with the pope, about these moral matters. This is scientifically provable by reading the CCC, pastoral letters, approved literature, etc. of the worlds bishops and popes since around 1970. These teachings are undoubtedly covered by the infallibility given to us by the ordinary and universal teaching of the Church.

Collegiality, ecumenism, religious liberty, salvation outside the Church, etc..., were proclaimed universally as heresies by the Holy Father and the bishops united with him for the first one-thousand-nine-hundred-and-sixty-three years of the Church's existence before Vatican II decided, "Nah, come to think of it, we're cool with that stuff."  I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, this quandary encapsulates the reason why I view the Council and its teachings with great difficulty.  Math isn't my strong suit, but the last I checked, 1,963 > 50.
Reply
#36
(12-13-2013, 07:00 PM)Skarga Wrote: Sorry if I broke the rules.

How is religious liberty not universally taught? Franco's Spain submitted to this. All of South America submitted to this. The USA had novenas for religious liberty earlier this year. The popes since Paul VI have taught and enforced this teaching. And I don't count excommunicated Archbishops like Lefebvre and Thuc in this argument. It's taught in every seminary, catechism, etc. since Vatican II. Opus Dei even changes their older catechisms/text books to include this teaching and removes references to Roman Catholic exclusivity in matters of state religion. If that isn't universality then I don't know what is.

Forget the question of whether it is "universally taught." until the question "what is meant by 'religious liberty'" is answered." Until that's defined in a manner consistent with traditional teaching, there's no real point talking about any of this -- unless you believe the Church can contradict Herself and posit that "religious liberty" means something different now than it did when the Catholic Encyclopedia was written and which includes this entry or "Religious Toleration:  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14763a.htm  If that is the case, then there's no point arguing with you about it because you're either not Catholic or don't do logic even insofar as "getting" the basic law of non-contradiction,

Toleration is one thing -- toleration of error, of evil, etc. Saying that error and evil have "rights" is another. Saying that the State should have no power to impose itself with regard to a given type of error or an evil is yet another thing again. But bottom line:  a government that doesn't have Christian morality and natural law as the arbiter of its "values" )what things are True, Good, and Just) leaves us with only a few other options, which I described on the Traditional Catholicism 101 page:  http://www.fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html

The Church has never taught that folks should be forcibly baptized, for ex. She's tolerated the practice of the Jewish religion in Christian lands, etc. But that tolerance/liberty/whatever you want to call it was never coupled with the idea that Christ is not, in fact, King and that civil law should ignore Christian teaching.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)