Anti-V2 "oath" floating around?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ambrosian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Ambrosian

Guest
Dearly beloved šŸ‘‹ ,

Iā€™m not too familiar with defending ā€œtraditionā€, especially with the complex range of problems in the last 50 years. All I know is that the Divine Love should always triumphā€¦ and the Tabor light of truth must bathe the worldā€¦

Has anyone seen this sort of thing? Someone ā€˜signedā€™ it on his Facebook page:
I, N., publically declare anathema against Vatican II. I reject this council with its ambigious documents and decrees on the grounds that they contradict the infallible statements of Unam Sanctam, Mortalium Animos, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, and Mystici Corporis. No council can overturn what has always been believed and what has been already infallibly defined. Those who adhere to a contrary view are guilty of schism and/or heresy. Anathema Vatican II! Anathema Ecumenism! Anathema the new mass! Amen.
Click to expand...
Is this person officially declaring that he is outside Rome? Is his faith in Christ nothing without faith in His Body? This is very sadā€¦ he converted from non-denominational roots, and I wonder if that traditionā€™s rebellion against authority has infected the way he views all authority!

How can one convince a person, so deeply in love with his own opinions, to once more approach the thrice-holy God in His Church?
 
I would say this is more of a rad-trad perspective and not indicative of all traditionalists.

And no, the person is not declaring he is outside of Rome, but is declaring that he is against what he sees as modernism.
 
Here we goā€¦ to what? Is that an answer?

This is very confusing, everyone seems to treat such things as hoaxes or jokes? šŸ˜¦
 
Ambrosian said:
Here we goā€¦ to what? Is that an answer?

This is very confusing, everyone seems to treat such things as hoaxes or jokes? šŸ˜¦
Click to expand...
Sorry.

I just meant this is likely to be a controversial post. I revised my post. šŸ™‚
 
TrueLight said:
Sorry.

I just meant this is likely to be a controversial post. I revised my post. šŸ™‚
Click to expand...
Ooh, thank you!

I donā€™t wish to scandalise everyone. My ā€˜wayā€™ and spirituality of coming to the Lord is eastern, so western scandals donā€™t register as much. Are people likely to make this into a war? Who knew such a forum would be so cantankerous!
 
Technically, I doubt such an oath would be schismatic or heretical. However, we are called to give an assent of faith to the non-infallible magisterium.

One thing seems odd: Mystici Corporis was an encyclal which has less wieght than the council.

Basically, the person does not understand the various documents well. There is NO contradiction between the documents they state and Vatican II. I have read all save Mortalium Animos.
 
TrueLight said:
I would say this is more of a rad-trad perspective and not indicative of all traditionalists.

And no, the person is not declaring he is outside of Rome, but is declaring that he is against what he sees as modernism.
Click to expand...
I donā€™t know about that. The ā€œoathā€ specifically lists Vatican II which is an ecumenical council.

How can that be interpreted as being against modernism? Again, it specifically says Vatican II and its decrees. To declare oneself against an ecumenical council of the Church is to declare yourself against the Church.

This ā€œoathā€ is nothing more than protestantism. This individual is placing himself as the authority to interpret Church teachings and its documents.
 
MPSchneiderLC said:
Technically, I doubt such an oath would be schismatic or heretical. However, we are called to give an assent of faith to the non-infallible magisterium.
Click to expand...
How can the out right denial of an ecumenical council of the Church not be a schismatic or heretical act?

The person taking such an oath is raising themselves up as the ultimate authority in Church teaching. It would be a form of protestantism.
 
I agree with ByzCath. In my humble opinion, the substance of this oath is schismatic (not even Archbishop Lefebvre dared to simply anathematize Vatican II as a whole), and, most of all, the form (the tone) indicates at least a tendence to a schismatic mindset.
 
Whoever posted it, is definately ā€œSCHISMATICā€.
And according to Canon Law may no longer receive Holy Communion or the other Sacraments, and excommunicates himself.
Signing this would make you a schismatic as well.

CCC - - 2089 SCHISM is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

Canon Law - - " Can. 1364 Ā§1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, **or a schismatic **incurs a latae sententiae excommunication;ā€¦"

Please read ā€œThe RATZINGER REPORTā€ regarding Vatican II for a clear and logical statement by Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict). He clearly states the schismatism of not accepting Vatican II with just as much authority as Trent and the other Councils.
(He also points out some of the abuses, which Vatican II did NOT teach.)
 
Marie27, this is very sadā€¦ from some conversations with him, it is obvious that his intent is not one of trying to find the truth, but of attempting to justify what he already believes. His refusal to hear me is a scandal and hurts my own faith, so Iā€™m not sure how to get to him. Perhaps all that can be done is to prayā€¦ šŸ™‚
 
ByzCath said:
How can the out right denial of an ecumenical council of the Church not be a schismatic or heretical act?

The person taking such an oath is raising themselves up as the ultimate authority in Church teaching. It would be a form of protestantism.
Click to expand...
Yes, especially that not anyone has the authority to just anathemize something.
 
I would guess this is a hoax, possibly found nailed to the door of a cathedral somewhere.
 
The way I look at it, as a new Catholic, is this:

There is massive controversy within ā€œTraditionalā€ circles regarding not only Vatican II, but its implementation, right?

Well, it takes the Church so long to work out such issues, and I most certainly did not come into the Catholic Church via any sort of ecumenical efforts or modernist pandering to my feelings, etc. I came into the Catholic Church because traditionalists were beating me over the head with TRUTH. Not wishy washy language, not everyone wave their arms prayer meets with umpteen denominations, etc. No, I was led to the Catholic Church by people who gave no mercy in their presentation of the truth. ā€œYOU (me), Protestant, are wrong!ā€ Oh really!? Wellā€¦ Iā€™ll just prove YOU (Trad Cath) wroā€¦oh, wow, youā€™re right. Rinse, repeat and finally, here I am.

The way I look at it is this: If it donā€™t conflict with V2, then I can go by the Council of Trent just as much as I can the VII things.

I have to wonder whoā€™s lying when someone gets beat up for choosing the previously ā€œrightā€ way when the new ā€œrightā€ way supposedly doesnā€™t conflict.

Iā€™ve read Lumen Gentium, Nostra Aetate, and parts of others. I am able to read between the lines and see whatā€™s being said and can easily reconcile it with previous things Iā€™ve read. The issue is, most modern people are absolutely retarded and canā€™t do that. Critical thinking skills are not fostered.

Of course I realize there are semantic legal wranglings, etc but ya know what, there are some legit questions put forth against VII. Like WHY there were Protestants invited to participate; WHY the Church didnā€™t boot those Bishops who were allowing blatant abuses by not booting those priests who were blatantly abusing the Mass ā€œin the spirit of Vatican IIā€; WHY the Mass was changed at all from the Tridentine (and going to both, I have no use whatsoever for a Mass I have to search for Jesus at. Sure, theyā€™re the ā€œsameā€, but theyā€™re not. Jesus is in my face at the EF. Having been a Protestant, who is rapidly anti-Protestantism now, I despise anything not in-my-face and blatantly Catholic. )

I am not offering an opinion on the OF vs EF or Pre-VII versus Post. I simply donā€™t have the education to do so. I havenā€™t read the necessary documents. Iā€™m not a theologian.

I can say this:

If itā€™s supposedly the same, then itā€™s just repackaged Pre-VII truth, right? If so, why canā€™t I just hang on to the truth which I am comfortable with?

Is Coke still Coke if it re-issues a new packaging? Sure. But is it still Coke if it no longer has the same ingredients and recipe? Well, maybe on the labelā€¦
 
TrueLight said:
I would say this is more of a rad-trad perspective and not indicative of all traditionalists.

And no, the person is not declaring he is outside of Rome, but is declaring that he is against what he sees as modernism.
Click to expand...
I donā€™t think a layperson is in any position to declare something anathema.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top