The Second Vatican Council
#11
(07-16-2019, 05:03 PM)Ginnyfree2 Wrote:
(07-16-2019, 03:02 PM)Alphonse il Segundo Wrote:
Quote:Part of the art of diplomacy, like it or not.  

Below is a story about St. Elias, Patron of Saint of Diplomats and Interreligious Dialogue,

Somebody should really get around to deleting this out of the Bible. Otherwise, people might know the bad things that St. Peter did.


Your post is a little flat.  First, there is no patron saint for diplomats though few come close, peacemakers, foreign missions, etc.  Secondly, the Pope is judged by no one but God, so perhaps you shouldn't.  Prudence.  It doesn't help except to make it harder for you to find some sort of reconciliation with your issues.  

I really don't want the usual diatribe that means nothing in this thread, but rather genuine issues.  Pick your most difficult passage from any of the Documents of V2, and tell me why it is not okay.  Then we can talk.  

God bless.  Ginnyfree.

That's right, Alphonse. Reference the post-Conciliar document Numquam ridentes for further explanation of how we should dialogue.
Filioli mei, non diligamus verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate.

Vos omnes amatores pulcherrimae linguae ecclesiae nostrae, videte filum quo de rebus sanctis profanisque colloqui possumus.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Filiolus's post:
  • Augustinian
Reply
#12
Quote:Your post is a little flat.  First, there is no patron saint for diplomats though few come close, peacemakers, foreign missions, etc. 


In some sectors, the above is known as a joke. 

Quote:Secondly, the Pope is judged by no one but God, so perhaps you shouldn't.  Prudence.  It doesn't help except to make it harder for you to find some sort of reconciliation with your issues.  

I have no hard feelings against the pope. I never knew the man, and never knew his Pontificate. I converted under Pope Francis. This is pretty much all I have known. 

The Pope is genuinely the least of my worries. 


Quote:Pick your most difficult passage from any of the Documents of V2, and tell me why it is not okay.  Then we can talk.  


I will read the documents of Vatican II just as soon as I finish reading the 20 prior Councils. Don't hold your breath.
[-] The following 2 users Like Alphonse il Segundo's post:
  • mpk1987, Zedta
Reply
#13
Quote:That's right, Alphonse. Reference the post-Conciliar document Numquam ridentes for further explanation of how we should dialogue.


I'll admit it, you lost me on that one. :s
Reply
#14
(07-16-2019, 08:14 PM)Alphonse il Segundo Wrote:
Quote:That's right, Alphonse. Reference the post-Conciliar document Numquam ridentes for further explanation of how we should dialogue.


I'll admit it, you lost me on that one. :s

Did you find the document?
Filioli mei, non diligamus verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate.

Vos omnes amatores pulcherrimae linguae ecclesiae nostrae, videte filum quo de rebus sanctis profanisque colloqui possumus.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Filiolus's post:
  • Alphonse il Segundo
Reply
#15
(07-16-2019, 08:22 PM)Filiolus Wrote:
(07-16-2019, 08:14 PM)Alphonse il Segundo Wrote:
Quote:That's right, Alphonse. Reference the post-Conciliar document Numquam ridentes for further explanation of how we should dialogue.


I'll admit it, you lost me on that one. :s

Did you find the document?

Took me a moment. Extensive googling and mediocre knowledge of romance languages have saved the day.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Alphonse il Segundo's post:
  • Filiolus
Reply
#16
(07-16-2019, 11:37 AM)Ginnyfree2 Wrote: I would love to have a nice peaceful dialog with you guys n gals regarding where you feel the Second Vatican Council has been wrong. 

Truly, it is not a topic of "feeling."


Here's an example of the falsity found in the documents of the Second Vatican Council:
Lumen Gentium, Ch. 3 Wrote:And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)

Here is the truth from the First Vatican Council to contrast:
First dogmatic constitution on the church of Christ, Ch. 4 Wrote:9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our saviour, for the exaltation of the catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

The First Vatican Council never limited the infallible charism of the Roman Pontiff solely to the body of the divine revelation sealed at the death of the Apostle St. John.  However, the Second Vatican Council explicitly limits the solemn judgments thus.

Another example:
Lumen Gentium, Ch. 2 Wrote:11. ...
Those who approach the sacrament of Penance obtain pardon from the mercy of God for the offence committed against Him and are at the same time reconciled with the Church, which they have wounded by their sins, and which by charity, example, and prayer seeks their conversion.

I studied the Latin source of this sentence with another Latin scholar and he was of the same opinion as I am regarding this sentence meaning merely to show up at the confessional is enough.  Here is the truth from the Council of Trent to contrast:

Sessio XIV, Ch. 4 Wrote:
Contrition, which holds the first place amongst the aforesaid acts of the penitent, is a sorrow of mind, and a detestation for sin committed, with the purpose of not sinning for the future. [Page 96] This movement of contrition was at all times necessary for obtaining the pardon of sins; and, in one who has fallen after baptism, it then at length prepares for the remissions of sins, when it is united with confidence in the divine mercy, and with the desire of performing the other things which are required for rightly receiving this sacrament. ...  And as to that imperfect contrition, which is called attrition, because that it is commonly conceived either from the consideration of the turpitude of sin, or from the fear of hell and of punishment, It declares that if, with the hope of pardon, it exclude the wish to sin, it not only does not make a man a hypocrite, and a greater sinner, but that it is even a gift of God, and an impulse of the Holy Ghost, –who does not indeed as yet dwell in the penitent, but only moves him, –whereby the penitent being assisted prepares a way for himself unto justice. And although this (attrition) cannot of itself, without the sacrament of penance, conduct the sinner to justification, yet does it dispose him to obtain the grace of God in the sacrament of [Page 97] Penance.

Sessio XIV, Ch. 5 Wrote:
But, whereas all mortal sins, even those of thought, render men children of wrath, and enemies of God, it is necessary to seek also for the pardon of them all from God, with an open and modest confession.

Sessio XIV, Ch. 8 Wrote:
And it beseems the divine clemency, that sins be not in such wise pardoned us without any satisfaction, as that, taking occasion therefrom, thinking sins less grievous, we, offering as it were an insult and an outrage to the Holy Ghost, should fall into more grievous sins, treasuring up wrath against the Jay of wrath.

The Council of Trent makes it clear that without the penitent doing his part, pardon is not granted.

There are many many more.  The document on religious freedom is almost an every-other-sentence insanity situation.
[-] The following 2 users Like yablabo's post:
  • cassini, Ginnyfree2
Reply
#17
yablabo,

At first when I saw someone had actually engaged Ginny I just rolled my eyes and was half-tempted to post a "Don't feed the [fill-in-the-blank]" meme. But you gave us such a bad-faith reading of Lumen Gentium that I find it necessary to correct your analysis - Latin and all.

Where we find problematic wording we should speak to it; prudently and discreetly. Discretion is necessary because looking like a conspiracy theorist isn't going to help anyone, even if there is a conspiracy. When you point out confusing wording, your goal is to teach someone the truth in light of Tradition. But if you talk like Pope Michael I no one is going to take you seriously; and if no one takes you seriously, you have fallen short of your goal, namely of teaching the truth.

But prudence means where the wording can be read in an orthodox way, it is only a matter of charity and piety to do so. Don't insert heresy where there is none. And the cases you gave us, particularly the second, can clearly be read in light of the tradition.

Quote:Here's an example of the falsity found in the documents of the Second Vatican Council:
Lumen Gentium, Ch. 3 Wrote:And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)

Here is the truth from the First Vatican Council to contrast:
First dogmatic constitution on the church of Christ, Ch. 4 Wrote:9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our saviour, for the exaltation of the catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

The First Vatican Council never limited the infallible charism of the Roman Pontiff solely to the body of the divine revelation sealed at the death of the Apostle St. John.  However, the Second Vatican Council explicitly limits the solemn judgments thus.

Now the selected passage may raise questions, but, ironically, not the one you did. A further limitation, even if you read it as such, is not the same thing as a contradiction. Therefore even if you think LG limited the popes infallibility to declarations regarding the deposit of revelation and that VI did not, this does not present problems.

However, I think VI can be understood to mean exactly what LG says in this regard. There is no new revelation; the whole of the Christian mystery was revealed in apostolic times. The pope can declare no new necessary truths that were not in some way revealed then. This is not controversial.

But... what other legitimate questions might one have about the passage of LG you quoted above? Moving on...

Quote:Another example:
Lumen Gentium, Ch. 2 Wrote:11. ...
Those who approach the sacrament of Penance obtain pardon from the mercy of God for the offence committed against Him and are at the same time reconciled with the Church, which they have wounded by their sins, and which by charity, example, and prayer seeks their conversion.

I studied the Latin source of this sentence with another Latin scholar and he was of the same opinion as I am regarding this sentence meaning merely to show up at the confessional is enough.  Here is the truth from the Council of Trent to contrast:

...


Now, this is the part of your post that really made me wince. For the peanut gallery, here's the Latin:

[quote]Qui vero ad sacramentum poenitentiae accedunt, veniam offensionis Deo illatae ab Eius misericordia obtinent et simul reconciliantur eum Ecclesia, quam peccando vulneraverunt, et quae eorum conversioni caritate, exemplo, precibus adlaborat.[/quote]

The translation for which is completely accurate above.

The literal sense of the words is indeed "whoever approaches the sacrament of penance". Nota bene, the confessional itself is not mentioned in the Latin or in the English translation. LG is not saying nor could it be understood to say that a person is forgiven automatically just for approaching the confessional. The confessional is literally not mentioned once; not in the English, not in the Latin.

To take the LG sentence to mean that absolution is unnecessary is unbelievably nasty.

First of all, it does not take into account the... er, um... poetic tone that many VII documents have. The word "approach" is clearly not meant to mean "walks up to"; it means one who confesses his sins and receives absolution. One cannot in good conscience read that sentence to mean that one who literally walks up to the sacrament (btw, how would one do that?) automatically has his sins forgiven. To read it in such a way is just bad-faith reading.

Second, the sacramentum is explicitly mentioned. Now, let me ask you a question - if a priest denies absolution to a penitent, does the penitent receive a sacrament? The answer is no. If there was no sacrament, neither did they approach it; they couldn't have, because there wasn't one. Therefore LG's words cannot be understood to mean that that person too is forgiven of his sins. This is a horribly semantic argument, but unfortunately it seems necessary.

Now the reading you provided is horribly misguided. The Latin did not mean what you claimed it did and rather than reading the documents in the light of tradition (not difficult to do with your particular objections), you chose overstate your case; your reading basically makes LG an overtly Protestant document [insert joke here]. This is uncharitable and impious. And if you honestly believed the document said what it did, please understand that you are misleading people with such interpretations. This is dangerous for people's souls, and that is no joke.
Filioli mei, non diligamus verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate.

Vos omnes amatores pulcherrimae linguae ecclesiae nostrae, videte filum quo de rebus sanctis profanisque colloqui possumus.
[-] The following 2 users Like Filiolus's post:
  • jovan66102, Zedta
Reply
#18
Filiolus, I disagree.
Reply
#19
(07-16-2019, 09:06 PM)Alphonse il Segundo Wrote:
(07-16-2019, 08:22 PM)Filiolus Wrote:
(07-16-2019, 08:14 PM)Alphonse il Segundo Wrote:
Quote:That's right, Alphonse. Reference the post-Conciliar document Numquam ridentes for further explanation of how we should dialogue.


I'll admit it, you lost me on that one. :s

Did you find the document?

Took me a moment. Extensive googling and mediocre knowledge of romance languages have saved the day.

Literally it mean never laughing, so your guess about what was meant is as good as mine.
Reply
#20
(07-16-2019, 10:01 PM)yablabo Wrote:
(07-16-2019, 11:37 AM)Ginnyfree2 Wrote: I would love to have a nice peaceful dialog with you guys n gals regarding where you feel the Second Vatican Council has been wrong. 

Truly, it is not a topic of "feeling."


Here's an example of the falsity found in the documents of the Second Vatican Council:
Lumen Gentium, Ch. 3 Wrote:And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)

Here is the truth from the First Vatican Council to contrast:
First dogmatic constitution on the church of Christ, Ch. 4 Wrote:9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our saviour, for the exaltation of the catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

The First Vatican Council never limited the infallible charism of the Roman Pontiff solely to the body of the divine revelation sealed at the death of the Apostle St. John.  However, the Second Vatican Council explicitly limits the solemn judgments thus.

Another example:
Lumen Gentium, Ch. 2 Wrote:11. ...
Those who approach the sacrament of Penance obtain pardon from the mercy of God for the offence committed against Him and are at the same time reconciled with the Church, which they have wounded by their sins, and which by charity, example, and prayer seeks their conversion.

I studied the Latin source of this sentence with another Latin scholar and he was of the same opinion as I am regarding this sentence meaning merely to show up at the confessional is enough.  Here is the truth from the Council of Trent to contrast:

Sessio XIV, Ch. 4 Wrote:
Contrition, which holds the first place amongst the aforesaid acts of the penitent, is a sorrow of mind, and a detestation for sin committed, with the purpose of not sinning for the future. [Page 96] This movement of contrition was at all times necessary for obtaining the pardon of sins; and, in one who has fallen after baptism, it then at length prepares for the remissions of sins, when it is united with confidence in the divine mercy, and with the desire of performing the other things which are required for rightly receiving this sacrament. ...  And as to that imperfect contrition, which is called attrition, because that it is commonly conceived either from the consideration of the turpitude of sin, or from the fear of hell and of punishment, It declares that if, with the hope of pardon, it exclude the wish to sin, it not only does not make a man a hypocrite, and a greater sinner, but that it is even a gift of God, and an impulse of the Holy Ghost, –who does not indeed as yet dwell in the penitent, but only moves him, –whereby the penitent being assisted prepares a way for himself unto justice. And although this (attrition) cannot of itself, without the sacrament of penance, conduct the sinner to justification, yet does it dispose him to obtain the grace of God in the sacrament of [Page 97] Penance.

Sessio XIV, Ch. 5 Wrote:
But, whereas all mortal sins, even those of thought, render men children of wrath, and enemies of God, it is necessary to seek also for the pardon of them all from God, with an open and modest confession.

Sessio XIV, Ch. 8 Wrote:
And it beseems the divine clemency, that sins be not in such wise pardoned us without any satisfaction, as that, taking occasion therefrom, thinking sins less grievous, we, offering as it were an insult and an outrage to the Holy Ghost, should fall into more grievous sins, treasuring up wrath against the Jay of wrath.

The Council of Trent makes it clear that without the penitent doing his part, pardon is not granted.

There are many many more.  The document on religious freedom is almost an every-other-sentence insanity situation.

Bravo!  Something honest I can sink my teeth into!  It will take a day to reply, so bear with me.  I'm ignoring your typos.  This one made me laugh " treasuring up wrath against the Jay of wrath."  Is that like a giant blue jay?  I had a huge century oak out back that had many jays who frequented it.  One day I got home from work and saw my poor kitty plastered flat against the ground as several blue jays were swooping down upon him literally inches from his poor kitty fur!  I had to rescue him and bring him in the house.  He never went near that tree again, ever.  They may have been the Jays of Wrath.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Ginnyfree2's post:
  • yablabo
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)