The Second Vatican Council
#61
(07-20-2019, 02:17 PM)BC Wrote:
(07-20-2019, 06:25 AM)Ginnyfree2 Wrote: BC  - "There is no other way around it. DH indicts the Catholic Church has having been unjust all of Her previous centuries towards non Catholics in Catholic states."

GF - Please show me where in the Document it states this. 

BC - "John Courtney Murray, the author of the document itself can't even explain how his teaching can be reconciled to previous Catholic teaching, which he expressly admits states the opposite of his own."

BC - "DH doesn't say the Catholic Church has been wrong, it just simply ignored previous teaching on Religious Liberty, like it did with previously condemned Ecumenisim, and proceeded to assert a new position. Anyone familiar with the Traditional teaching recognized it as an implicit renunciation. What do you mean where do I find it, or that it is far fetched? It's a direct quote from the man himself."
Okie dokie.  BC choosing to name drop, has introduced a newer variety of baloney called SPAM into this dialog regarding the document of the Second Vatican Council titled Dignitatis Humanae promulgated by the then reigning Pope, now known as St. Paul Vi, but he has placed too much mustard on the SPAM sandwich. Here are all the names dropped: Fr. De Lubac, Cardinal Père Congar, Jesuit Fr. Peter Henrici, Philippe Levillain, Hans Küng, Beauchesne with no known first name, Philippe Levillain, Jesuit Fr. Peter Henrici, Bishop Aloysius Wycislo, Father T. M. Schoof, Jean Guitton, Cardinal Liènart, Franco Bellegrandi, Robert Laffont, and last but not least, Jean Puyo.  A Baker's Dozen! I might add the only Saint is the Pope, St. Paul VI, not any of the men listed.  Why is that?  Just something you may want to think about BC.
However, I asked you, for your thoughts, not theirs.  None of them make your point for you either.  Please answer my question if you will.  You stated that Dignitatis Humanae indicts the Church herself.  That is not a nice thing to say about my Mother.  I love her.  She is the spotless Bride of the Unblemished Lamb, Holy, One, Catholic and Apostolic, United with God and passing down thru all generations her blessings in the same purity of Doctrines as she received them from her Bridegroom.  
The word you lack the understanding of is emphasis.  Here is a little something about the word - 
emphasis (n.)


1570s, "intensity of expression," from Latin emphasis, from Greek emphasis "an appearing in, outward appearance;" in rhetoric, "significance, indirect meaning," from emphainein "to present, exhibit, display, let (a thing) be seen; be reflected (in a mirror), become visible," from assimilated form of en "in" (see en- (2)) + phainein "to show" (from PIE root *bha- (1) "to shine").

In Greek and Latin, originally a figure of expression implying more than would ordinarily be meant by the words, it developed a sense of "extra stress" given to a word or phrase in speech as a clue that it implies something more than literal meaning. In pure Latin, significatio.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/emphasis
Applying an emphasis on a particular feature found in the treasury of our Magisterium, along with Sacred Scriptures and Tradition, that being the dignity of man given him at his creation in God's own image and relating it to the many ways in which this dignity includes the necessity of religious freedoms and withing limits, helps man peaceful attain to the fullness of that image should he chose to use his freedom to reach towards his Creator.  The dignity of the human person, male and female He created them, for each other and for Himself.  This freedom must be protected by just governments.  That's the message in Dignitatis Humanae.  
You have yet to show me where in the document you find an indictment of the Church.  
I will leave you with what I offered to Augustinian early today:  "Thus the fantasy of absurdity impugning "the popes, saints, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, bishops, and Catholic kings," of the 2 millennia you shake your finger at for violating the natural rights of men without anyone seeing it.  This itself is to impugn the Law of Christ itself as the natural law is upheld by the Law of God which is the depositum fidei we guard faithfully, semper habet, semper erit.  "Detract not one another, my brethren. He that detracteth his brother, or he that judgeth his brother, detracteth the law, and judgeth the law. But if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.  There is one lawgiver, and judge, that is able to destroy and to deliver."  James 4:11-12.   So there ya go.  I hope you can see the points made.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.
PS.  I apologize for going a bit snarky on you.  It is past my bedtime.  Vespers is done, but Penance awaits.  I'm grumpy when I need my sleep.
Reply
#62
(07-20-2019, 03:26 AM)Ginnyfree2 Wrote:
(07-19-2019, 11:16 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: Fr John Hardon, S.J., in his Modern Catholic Dictionary, has this to say about the Syllabus (my emphasis),

Quote:
SYLLABUS OF PIUS IX. A series of eighty condemned propositions listing the prevalent errors that aimed at the undermining of society, morality, and religion.Every Catholic is expected to give exterior and interior assent to the condemnation of errors expressed in this syllabus.

Fr Hardon's Dictionary was published in 1980 and bears a post-Conciliar Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. The nihil obstat  is an official declaration that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error, after being reviewed by a learned theologian appointed by the Ordinary granting the imprimatur, so it cannot be argued that Father's work is outdated, or opposed to the Faith.

Well, I wouldn't bother with Hardon as a reliable source even though he is praised by Burke.  He has too many mistakes in the works themselves, may he rest in peace.  The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur granted is not the only time in recent years that one was given in error to something containing error itself.  It won't be the last.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.

Anyone who can dismiss a well-accredited theologian and highly-respected priest like a Fr John Hardon as not a "reliable source" ought to immediately be dismissed for the fool that they are.

Anyone who can dismiss such a one out-of-hand without even a bad token argument, and then demands others show documentary proof of their own claims is also rightly dismissed as a fool and a troll.

I say Ginny be ignored from here on out, no matter which account she chooses to use. It's not worth the waste of time to reply.
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • antiquarian, jovan66102, mpk1987
Reply
#63
I agree to argue with Ginny is a waste of time.

I no longer agree that she is a troll and a fool. I think she’s well-intentioned albeit a bit ignorant; but imo the blinders she has on were placed there for love of Holy Mother Church. Much better this than sedevacantist. “If thine eye scandalize thee...”
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:
  • MagisterMusicae
Reply
#64
(07-18-2019, 10:18 PM)Filiolus Wrote:
(07-18-2019, 10:07 PM)yablabo Wrote: For holding a philosophy degree you seem awfully loose with the concepts underlying words, and yet rational thought demands clear and logical black-and-white thinking to clarify concepts and make sound judgments.  I will also, therefore, point out that you have offered no alternate conventional understanding of the words in the sentence themselves.  I posit it is because it is clear to you, even, that the sentence is in error and must simply be healed in your mind by the sound doctrine.

lol

One of the first things you learn in philosophy is that most words have more than one unstated meaning. This idea is called equivocation. So no, communication isn't black and white; it's more like a spectrum. You have to discern the contextual meaning of each word in each sentence; you have to decide which meaning makes the most sense from the writer's point of view.

Besides equivocation, we also have many different senses in which a writer can speak; Vatican II represents a break from previous Councils because it tries to be, as I said, poetic or metaphorical, which is also how mystics usually write.

You shouldn't expect scholastic precision in every sentence of Vatican II or of St. Faustina's Diary. When you do you end up making silly errors like you've demonstrated with the sentence in question. The Summa LG ain't.

Yablabo: "For holding a philosophy degree you seem awfully loose with the concepts underlying words, and yet rational thought demands clear and logical black-and-white thinking to clarify concepts and make sound judgments."

Filiolus: "One of the first things you learn in philosophy is that most words have more than one unstated meaning. This idea is called equivocation. So no, communication isn't black and white; it's more like a spectrum. You have to discern the contextual meaning of each word in each sentence; you have to decide which meaning makes the most sense from the writer's point of view."

GF: Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no.  Anything else is from the evil one.  God said that in the Gospel of St. Matthew, Chapter 5, verse 37.  When issues divide us that need resolution, speculative "theology," if you want to even call what passes for it here lately theology.  Mostly it is hatred for God and His Church given a platform from which to vent it.  Do you think He is well pleased with what you have done?  Your glory is your shame yet you still choose to mock Him and claim it is righteous.  I do understand that your schismatic thinking distorts many of your thoughts.  You are sickened by your sins, yet when the particulars as asked for, you simply trot out some meaningless diatribe that will only keep you sickened.  Yet, gross is the heart of this people, they will hardly hear with their ears, they have closed their eyes, lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and be converted, I heal them."  God in St. Matthew's Gospel again.  He died for you yet you keep denying Him in the works He has done for His Church in the most recent Council of His Church.  I just don't get you two.  Can you please stop your equivocations and let your yes mean yes, etc.?  Your souls are in jeopardy.  Extra Ecclessiam nulla salus.  Each step further you go in that direction, is the closer you get to oblivion.  I sit here on a quiet Sunday hoping to talk more, yet you are only arguing with each other about how distorted you can speak and still make sense! What are you trying to accomplish for God or yourselves even?  Do you think your own salvation is assured by your empty bombast so that you can turn your backs on Christ and mock the Church with your gibberish?  A General Admonition. From St. Paul's Letter to the Colossians, Chapter 2, 4 to 8.  

Pay attention boys and girls.  

I say this so that no one may deceive you by specious arguments. For even if I am absent in the flesh, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing as I observe your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ.dSo, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, walk in him,rooted in him and built upon him and established in the faith as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition, according to the elemental powers of the world and not according to Christ.

 So now, you whip out your specious arguments as if they are so deep the silly widow just can't get it.  You deceive yourselves.  They are about as deep as a mud puddle.  Filth you wash yourselves in when you could have the Blood of the Lamb in the confessional poured into the wounds on your souls.  Please, these speculative sessions need to end.  Oblivion awaits.  There is no other place to go.  Come home to Rome.  All you have to lose is your sins and the sickness they are giving you.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.
Reply
#65
(07-21-2019, 02:51 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(07-20-2019, 03:26 AM)Ginnyfree2 Wrote:
(07-19-2019, 11:16 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: Fr John Hardon, S.J., in his Modern Catholic Dictionary, has this to say about the Syllabus (my emphasis),

Anyone who can dismiss a well-accredited theologian and highly-respected priest like a Fr John Hardon as not a "reliable source" ought to immediately be dismissed for the fool that they are.

Anyone who can dismiss such a one out-of-hand without even a bad token argument, and then demands others show documentary proof of their own claims is also rightly dismissed as a fool and a troll.

I say Ginny be ignored from here on out, no matter which account she chooses to use. It's not worth the waste of time to reply.

So, you want to praise a man whose works you curse when it suits you.  You speaketh with forked tongue.  So, ignore me.  Only conclusion I can see is you cannot defend even one of your own points and keep the red herrings coming, hoping I'll dine on the little fishies and forget the whole point of the thread.  

Let's get back to YOUR PROBLEMS with specific parts of the Documents of the Second Vatican Council, one or two at a time.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.
Reply
#66
(07-21-2019, 09:49 AM)Ginnyfree2 Wrote:
(07-18-2019, 10:18 PM)Filiolus Wrote:
(07-18-2019, 10:07 PM)yablabo Wrote: For holding a philosophy degree you seem awfully loose with the concepts underlying words, and yet rational thought demands clear and logical black-and-white thinking to clarify concepts and make sound judgments.  I will also, therefore, point out that you have offered no alternate conventional understanding of the words in the sentence themselves.  I posit it is because it is clear to you, even, that the sentence is in error and must simply be healed in your mind by the sound doctrine.

lol

One of the first things you learn in philosophy is that most words have more than one unstated meaning. This idea is called equivocation. So no, communication isn't black and white; it's more like a spectrum. You have to discern the contextual meaning of each word in each sentence; you have to decide which meaning makes the most sense from the writer's point of view.

Besides equivocation, we also have many different senses in which a writer can speak; Vatican II represents a break from previous Councils because it tries to be, as I said, poetic or metaphorical, which is also how mystics usually write.

You shouldn't expect scholastic precision in every sentence of Vatican II or of St. Faustina's Diary. When you do you end up making silly errors like you've demonstrated with the sentence in question. The Summa LG ain't.

Yablabo: "For holding a philosophy degree you seem awfully loose with the concepts underlying words, and yet rational thought demands clear and logical black-and-white thinking to clarify concepts and make sound judgments."

Filiolus: "One of the first things you learn in philosophy is that most words have more than one unstated meaning. This idea is called equivocation. So no, communication isn't black and white; it's more like a spectrum. You have to discern the contextual meaning of each word in each sentence; you have to decide which meaning makes the most sense from the writer's point of view."

GF: Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no.  Anything else is from the evil one.  God said that in the Gospel of St. Matthew, Chapter 5, verse 37.  When issues divide us that need resolution, speculative "theology," if you want to even call what passes for it here lately theology.  Mostly it is hatred for God and His Church given a platform from which to vent it.  Do you think He is well pleased with what you have done?  Your glory is your shame yet you still choose to mock Him and claim it is righteous.  I do understand that your schismatic thinking distorts many of your thoughts.  You are sickened by your sins, yet when the particulars as asked for, you simply trot out some meaningless diatribe that will only keep you sickened.  Yet, gross is the heart of this people, they will hardly hear with their ears, they have closed their eyes, lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and be converted, I heal them."  God in St. Matthew's Gospel again.  He died for you yet you keep denying Him in the works He has done for His Church in the most recent Council of His Church.  I just don't get you two.  Can you please stop your equivocations and let your yes mean yes, etc.?  Your souls are in jeopardy.  Extra Ecclessiam nulla salus.  Each step further you go in that direction, is the closer you get to oblivion.  I sit here on a quiet Sunday hoping to talk more, yet you are only arguing with each other about how distorted you can speak and still make sense! What are you trying to accomplish for God or yourselves even?  Do you think your own salvation is assured by your empty bombast so that you can turn your backs on Christ and mock the Church with your gibberish?  A General Admonition. From St. Paul's Letter to the Colossians, Chapter 2, 4 to 8.  

Pay attention boys and girls.  

I say this so that no one may deceive you by specious arguments. For even if I am absent in the flesh, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing as I observe your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ.dSo, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, walk in him,rooted in him and built upon him and established in the faith as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition, according to the elemental powers of the world and not according to Christ.

 So now, you whip out your specious arguments as if they are so deep the silly widow just can't get it.  You deceive yourselves.  They are about as deep as a mud puddle.  Filth you wash yourselves in when you could have the Blood of the Lamb in the confessional poured into the wounds on your souls.  Please, these speculative sessions need to end.  Oblivion awaits.  There is no other place to go.  Come home to Rome.  All you have to lose is your sins and the sickness they are giving you.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.

First of all, I resent thoroughly the charge of "schismatic thought."  I don't believe either Filiolus or myself represented anything in the remotest degree which was schismatic.  Saint or not, Pope Paul VI was emphatic (to borrow your word) that there were no dogmatic definitions made in the works of the Second Vatican Council. 

I am not angry.  I won't say Raca! or Thou Fool!, but really if you do not understand or believe that words must have concrete meanings, like Yes, Yes and No, No, then why do you even bother to reply?  Perhaps you should re-read the works of the First Vatican Council to see what it says about abandoning the sense of the dogmas "under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."

Also, if you're going to claim anyone in this thread has sinned mortally, you're going to have to name the species of sin, not bandy about your bologna and mayonnaise.  To do otherwise, is to put the suspicion upon yourself for detraction and/or calumny, as we all have a right to our good name.

...and...Why would you ask that "God bless" what you claim to be schismatic thinking?
[-] The following 2 users Like yablabo's post:
  • MagisterMusicae, mpk1987
Reply
#67
Satan has influenced the direction of this thread to sow an uncharitable attitude among us. I'm personally not going to be engaging in this debate any longer.

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us
Immaculate Heart of Mary, save us
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” (St. Matt. 7:15)

"In this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors." -Pope Pius XI., Mortalium Animos
[-] The following 3 users Like Augustinian's post:
  • Lavenderson, mpk1987, yablabo
Reply
#68
Ginnyfree2 sez: Pay attention boys and girls. 


i'm to poor to pay attention
Oh, where are the snows of yesteryear!
[-] The following 1 user Likes Blind Horus's post:
  • mpk1987
Reply
#69
(07-21-2019, 09:45 AM)Filiolus Wrote: I agree to argue with Ginny is a waste of time.

I no longer agree that she is a troll and a fool. I think she’s well-intentioned albeit a bit ignorant; but imo the blinders she has on were placed there for love of Holy Mother Church. Much better this than sedevacantist. “If thine eye scandalize thee...”

I meant those terms in the proper sense.

I agree she is probably well-intentioned, and that is why I say "fool" rather than something suggesting ignorance or malice. I assume the best about her motives.

To have no issue with the clear contradictions between the documents of Vatican II and previous magisterial documents and dismiss these without argument, then to condemn or dismiss those who point this out while trying to give a pass to Modernists who have clearly stated that they intended to destroy the Church through a change in theology as has been done above is foolish.

It may be a well-intentioned blindness that she's brought on herself, but it one emanating from naivety or foolishness.

She has come onto a Traditional Catholic board for the purpose of promoting a warped theology (which she refuses to see is so). It is not to engage in the constructive discussion which has been the hallmark of this forum for years, even if that discussion does become adversarial at times. To come in swinging (with charges of "schism" and "heresy") does not make for said constructive discussion.

To be clear, I would happily engage on any point of controversy as regards the Second Vatican Council, but it has become clear to me given Ginny method here that it is a pointless discussion.
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • antiquarian, Bonaventure, yablabo
Reply
#70
(07-21-2019, 09:59 AM)Ginnyfree2 Wrote:
(07-21-2019, 02:51 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(07-20-2019, 03:26 AM)Ginnyfree2 Wrote:
(07-19-2019, 11:16 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: Fr John Hardon, S.J., in his Modern Catholic Dictionary, has this to say about the Syllabus (my emphasis),

Anyone who can dismiss a well-accredited theologian and highly-respected priest like a Fr John Hardon as not a "reliable source" ought to immediately be dismissed for the fool that they are.

Anyone who can dismiss such a one out-of-hand without even a bad token argument, and then demands others show documentary proof of their own claims is also rightly dismissed as a fool and a troll.

I say Ginny be ignored from here on out, no matter which account she chooses to use. It's not worth the waste of time to reply.

So, you want to praise a man whose works you curse when it suits you.

I've never condemned the man or "cursed" his works.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102, mpk1987
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)