S
SemperFidelis
Guest
Explaining? Cardinal Ratzinger called Dignitatis Humanae “inconstestably a novelty.” Novelty is not a word that could ever describe something that belongs to the Deposit of Faith.
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
He’s not saying that they are in contradiction. He is sayiing that they are speaking to different times and that the Documents of Vatican II are consistent with the time before the issues that Pius IX and X adressed arose. That the issues that are affecting the Church have changed; therefore the decree GS and DH have to address those issues, which are a recycle of the past. He’s not the onlly theologian who believes that issues in the Church recycle.
What is interesting about his statement is that he does not hold them to be in either contradiction, nor inapplicable in the proper context. I find it interesting, because too many of us want to be an either or Church, either The Sylladus or Vatican II; either pre-Vatican II popes or post-Vatican II popes. What Benedict points out is that it’s not an either or. It’s both and they do not contract themselves, becasue the issues are different, though they may appear similar. You apply the proper teaching to each issue.
The best example that I can give is religious freedom. We do not have many Catholic states left. Therefore, the Church has no jurisdiction over most nations of the world. Whaterver decrees were made for Catholic world leaders and their Catholic States are not enforceable. The Church now has to address secular states who would wipe God off the playing field. When they take God off the playing field the freedom of all people of faith are threatened, including Catholics. You can’t bring anyone to the Church through legislation, especiallly by a secular state.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
This is what the Holy Father said. He did not call anything a novelty.
Let us content ourselves here with stating that the text [of Gaudium et spes] plays the role of a counter-Syllabus to the measure that it represents an attempt to officially reconcile the Church with the world as it had become after 1789. On one hand, this visualization alone clarifies the ghetto complex that we mentioned before. On the other hand, it permits us to understand the meaning of this new relationship between the Church and the Modern World. “World” is understood here, at depth, as the spirit of modern times. … (Les Principes de la Theologie Catholique - Esquisse et Materiaux, Paris: Tequi, 1982, pp. 426-427).
Congar siad that there was a contradiction, but not a novelty.
Fraternally,
Br. Jr, OSF
Let us content ourselves here with stating that the text [of Gaudium et spes] plays the role of a counter-Syllabus to the measure that it represents an attempt to officially reconcile the Church with the world as it had become after 1789. On one hand, this visualization alone clarifies the ghetto complex that we mentioned before. On the other hand, it permits us to understand the meaning of this new relationship between the Church and the Modern World. “World” is understood here, at depth, as the spirit of modern times. … (Les Principes de la Theologie Catholique - Esquisse et Materiaux, Paris: Tequi, 1982, pp. 426-427).
Congar siad that there was a contradiction, but not a novelty.
Fraternally,
Br. Jr, OSF
T
truevaticanii
Guest
Very true.
The same can be said for the majority of “post-concilliar” (Novus Ordo) Catholics…clergy and lay alike. That’s why there’s a crisis in the church.
I can’t wait until VII is clarified so that the endless, mindless, horrid “tinkering” on the part of the oh-so-hip-and-with-the-times clergy and layman can STOP.
C
Califman831
Guest
Amen
P
pnewton
Guest
Yes, and I told you point blank (which you ignored) that I was not going to get drawn into another off topic discussion. For years the SSPX has been peddling the same wares here. The topic at hand is the Bishop Fellay position on the talks aimed at reconcilliation. My point, (and my opinion on this topic), is that it is time to close his mouth and open his ears. His desire to control the topic of the talks reveals his greatest weakness. No doubt his followers view this as a strength. I do not. I believe the greatest strength is found in humility, not posturing.
I do not fine Athanasius signifincant as an example. I have found that most of the time the example is used, it does nothing but leave the bigger question unanswered: is the situation at hand truly the same as St. Athanasius faced? The Church was much different in the fifth century than today. The level of communication between all people is astronomically more improve. The issues at hand were more germinal to Christianity. And, perhaps equally important, it was an exceptional case. Most Saints who dealt with Popes who were in error managed to do so without rebellion and disobedience. That is the rule, not this exceptional case of St. Athanasius.
There simply is no heresy that Fellay is being require to submit to for him to be reconciled. This is a ridiculous comparison.
P
pnewton
Guest
LInk? I am suspicious of three word quotes provided without links.
Here is the Google for what you are claiming
google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22incontestably+a+novelty%22+%22Dignitatis+Humanae+%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
It shows one result link from some site called “true restoration” on a book review by an author, you guessed it, Lefervre.
I only point this out to show to others how SSPX misinformation is often recirculated enough to give it an appearance of substance.
D
DOShea
Guest
This can easily become a crutch if one simply and arbitrarily, as a result of conscience or otherwise, assigns what they think into this category. When you have two documents that appear on the surface in conflict, then you have a world-class theologian, now the Pope, step forward and explain why the apparent conflict is not, in fact, conflict, what more do you want? How can you possibly believe that we DO have the same deposit of faith of the Apostles, defended time and time again in this exact, same way throughout the centuries, but the ONE exception is whatever the SSPX thinks cannot be resolved in the same, time-tested way? That strikes me as having your cake and wanting to eat it too.
I agree it mus be defended, and to whom does that job ultimately fall, a Bishop marching to his deposit-of-faith tune or the one who sits in the deposit-of-faith Chair of St. Peter? No one is judging the guilt of individual Catholics? Are you serious? Have you ever read some the horrendous things written on SSPX websites about Catholics who dismiss SSPX claims as erroneous or superfluous? There certainly is opinion out there about it. To what degree that deviates from SSPX true claims and may be part of what Br. JR’ described as overzealous laity I don’t know.
What I do know is the divisiveness seems a universe apart from “And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them: that, they may be one, as we also are one.” You can’t get more “original faith” than words out of the very mouth of our Lord, words that run the spear of truth right through the heart of the idea that it’s perfectly okay to sit apart from the church as an individual group negotiating with the Vicar of Christ about Truth. How dare they!
B
bkovacs
Guest
Most of todays Roman Catholics don’t even know who St Athanasius is. God Bless Bishop Fellay!.
G
Glenoy
Guest
There is a poster here who uses the analogy of a lightweight boxer fighting a heavyweight. But if I were to consider the exchanges of ideas on this thread like that of exchanges of punches inside the boxing ring, then I know who was getting knockdown many times. But certainly not Ultima Ratio. Luckily, there is no 3 knockdown rule.
Ultima Ratio, you are the best pound-for-pound fighter here.
Keep it up brother. I learned so much from your posts.
Greetings from The Philippines…
Ultima Ratio, you are the best pound-for-pound fighter here.
Keep it up brother. I learned so much from your posts.
Greetings from The Philippines…
P
pnewton
Guest
1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
C
CradleCath
Guest
Ultima, I’m learning so much from reading this thread. However, I need to ask if you are a member of the SSPX?? I am not asking this question to denigrate you or create a on-line argument, but am asking because…in order to learn more from this thread…I need to know where you’re coming from. I sincerely hope that you take this question in the spirit in which it was asked. You are SO informed re. the SSPX, the history of the Arian heresy, etc., & regarding the SSPX & Bishop Fellay…I’m NOT.
T
TMC
Guest
This thread had devolved, as so many here do, into a debate over the validity of what I would call “Ancientism,” which I would define as the assumption that old things and long dead people are necessarily better than newer things and the more recently living.
This is just as dangerous an error as any breed of “Modernism.” The idea that people “these days” are necessarily less worthy than those that came before is akin to a kind of self-loathing and as no place in our Faith. I know that the Ancientists can and will say its not just about newness, that there are specific things they find to be error. But underlying most of the arguments is the idea that the bishops sitting at Trent (or Lateran or Constantinople or whatever council that person thinks was the last, best council) were necessarily better or more holy or better inspired or whatever than the bishops sitting at the Vatican councils. Simply put, there is no reason to believe that to be true. If anything, I believe the opposite to be true.
But to admit that the Church has changed the way it understands and explains the Faith is not the same as saying the faith has changed, or even that the old way was wrong. The Truth does not change, but our understanding of Truth does change and grow. Sometimes it is not even that our understanding has changed, but that we are sufficiently different that it is helpful to describe the same Truth in different terms so that it is easier to understand. Anyone that seriously believes that the understanding (and explanation) of our Faith cannot change and grow must necessarily believe that the Church has been in serious error since at least 381, because the Church has communicated changes in the understanding of the Faith at every ecumenical council. And virtually every council has been followed by claims by some that it was wrong and a break with the past.
The differences in how the Church now explains the faith and the way it was explained 100 years ago are not insignificant, but nothing like the changes we have gone through in the past. No one that has seriously (or even half-heartedly) looked into Church history can say that the Church was the same from 33 AD to 1962, and then changed. The 50 AD Church was very different from the Church of 100 AD. A Christian from 100 AD would scarcily recognize the 400 AD Church, and so on.
The bottom line is that the apostolic churches extend back in an unbroken line to the first followers of Christ. Like the first Christians, we are led by remarkable and well-meaning people that are sometimes hobbled by inherent human limitations. But our leaders have not broken with the past or denied the Faith. If one believes that, he or she is in the wrong Church.
This is just as dangerous an error as any breed of “Modernism.” The idea that people “these days” are necessarily less worthy than those that came before is akin to a kind of self-loathing and as no place in our Faith. I know that the Ancientists can and will say its not just about newness, that there are specific things they find to be error. But underlying most of the arguments is the idea that the bishops sitting at Trent (or Lateran or Constantinople or whatever council that person thinks was the last, best council) were necessarily better or more holy or better inspired or whatever than the bishops sitting at the Vatican councils. Simply put, there is no reason to believe that to be true. If anything, I believe the opposite to be true.
But to admit that the Church has changed the way it understands and explains the Faith is not the same as saying the faith has changed, or even that the old way was wrong. The Truth does not change, but our understanding of Truth does change and grow. Sometimes it is not even that our understanding has changed, but that we are sufficiently different that it is helpful to describe the same Truth in different terms so that it is easier to understand. Anyone that seriously believes that the understanding (and explanation) of our Faith cannot change and grow must necessarily believe that the Church has been in serious error since at least 381, because the Church has communicated changes in the understanding of the Faith at every ecumenical council. And virtually every council has been followed by claims by some that it was wrong and a break with the past.
The differences in how the Church now explains the faith and the way it was explained 100 years ago are not insignificant, but nothing like the changes we have gone through in the past. No one that has seriously (or even half-heartedly) looked into Church history can say that the Church was the same from 33 AD to 1962, and then changed. The 50 AD Church was very different from the Church of 100 AD. A Christian from 100 AD would scarcily recognize the 400 AD Church, and so on.
The bottom line is that the apostolic churches extend back in an unbroken line to the first followers of Christ. Like the first Christians, we are led by remarkable and well-meaning people that are sometimes hobbled by inherent human limitations. But our leaders have not broken with the past or denied the Faith. If one believes that, he or she is in the wrong Church.
L
Layman
Guest
This would be good. For my own part, I don’t see that the Council propounded anything that a Catholic couldn’t safely ignore and still remain faithful.
If that is so, it’s funny the fuss it’s caused and how it’s been used to justify a lot of shenanigans. It didn’t come out with anything like the Doctrine Of Papal Infallibility, for example.
J
JReducation
Guest
You’re making some excellent points. As Vatican II said in several documents, what it tried to do was to explain pastoral changes that it believed necessarry in light of the faith that had been taught by the Church through the centuries. The problem often comes from two serious sides.
On the one side, you have those who do what they want to do and blame it on the Spirit of Vatican II. Their spirit is not the same as Vatican II and they did a great deal of harm. But this is not to say that it did not also happen after every other council in Church history. This has been labeled the “liberal” side.
On the other sidde, you have those who want to argue that the faith cannot be explained any better than it was by previous popes, councils and catechisms and because they do not understand the explanations given by the last five popes and Vatican II. That’s not a valid universal statement. Many of us do understand the documents and do understand what the popes are saying about the faith and do not see it as a change in course. It’s deeper insight, often another perspective that no one had ever considered, and often just new language to same the same old thing. As Benedict XVI says, you need new language to speak to modern man. Just because you’re speaking to modern man, does not make you a member of the Modernist Movement of the 19th century. That was an entire movement that does not apply every time the word “modern” is used…
I believe there has to be a little more faith and love on both sides for those on the other side. Then the wall in the middle will come crumbling down.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
I converted to the Church through the SSPX about 12 years ago. At the time, I had no idea about any of the controversy. I simply wanted to become a Catholic and the Church I found happened to be SSPX. Actually, there’s a little more to that story that I will tell you…Ultima, I’m learning so much from reading this thread. However, I need to ask if you are a member of the SSPX?? I am not asking this question to denigrate you or create a on-line argument, but am asking because…in order to learn more from this thread…I need to know where you’re coming from. I sincerely hope that you take this question in the spirit in which it was asked. You are SO informed re. the SSPX, the history of the Arian heresy, etc., & regarding the SSPX & Bishop Fellay…I’m NOT.
A few years before converting, I read in a Catholic book about a “spiritual director” (I had never heard of such a thing before). After reading the book, I started praying that God would send me a spiritual director, and find me a good Church. At the time I was still Protestant and thought this would be a Protestant Church. After a few years of praying that prayer, and after studying my way to the Catholic Church, I began attending a Novus Ordo mass during my lunch break. At this time I still was not Catholic but wanted to convert - and the sooner the better. One day after Mass I noticed a sign at the Church saying “RCIA classes to begin on such and such a date”. I spoke to someone there about the class, and a few weeks later I was at the orientation. So far so good.
The problem came when the teacher arrived and began saying all kinds of strange things. I didn’t know much about the faith at that time, but I knew I did not like what I heard. Therefore, rather than going back to that class, I opened the phone book and started calling Catholic Churches in the area. I was very happy to locate a Church (SSPX) where the Priest agreed to give me one-on-one catechism classes. These classes were the highlight of my week. I loved them.
The Priest had just arrived from Africa. He was a missionary in the jungles of Africa, no less. As I would later figure out, this Priest was the answer to my prayer for a spiritual director. Our minds were very similar, and we got along very well. I remember always being amazed at how he could answer any question I posed. And he didn’t just give me an answer, but the answer. He would go to the chaulk board and showed me how to answer the particular question I asked. I would always think “Next week I’ll ask him this”, thinking the most he would be able to provide was his opinioin. But everytime he would not give me merely an opinion, but *the *answer to the question. There was a difference, and I was always struck by it.
I converted, was conditionally baptized, confirmed by Bishop Williamson no less, and then moved out of state about 6 months later. A few months after I moved, the Priest, who, if you remember, had just arrived at the Church when he began my catechism classes, was then transferred to Ireland. I had been praying for a spiritual director, and it just so happens that this particular Priest, who perfect for me, was transfered to my area, and then transferred away after I left. I had no doubt that he was the answer to my prayers. Although he has been in Ireland ever since, we still maintain contact via e-mail… and he is just as good today as he was then. I could tell you stories about this Priest that are really amazing.
Now, when I learned about the excommunication and the other controversies (about a year after converting), I backed away from the SSPX so that I could look into the matter objectively. It took me a year or two to work through everything. After a few years, I was satisfied that the position taken by the SSPX was justified, although there was some wavering back and forth for a few more years.
Today I attend mass at an SSPX Church sometimes (particularly for daily Mass), but the Church I am registered with is an Order that is in normal relations with Rome, and we almost always attend that Church on Sundays.
L
Layman
Guest
If the SSPX has The Truth on its side, then it will prevail. If Vat. II documents can be used to promote heresy, then they need to be formally and loudly clarified or just dumped.
It’s ironic how some posters think they can divine the mind of Bishop Fellay based on newspaper reports. “A return to the past” would, in fact, be delightful: sound doctrine, good teaching, sacraments free of novelty, personalisation and experiment.
I enjoyed Ultima Ratio’s explanation of what religious liberty means in the light of Church teachings. The Church can’t say or promote the idea that people are free to believe in false religions i.e. free to go to Hell.
It’s ironic how some posters think they can divine the mind of Bishop Fellay based on newspaper reports. “A return to the past” would, in fact, be delightful: sound doctrine, good teaching, sacraments free of novelty, personalisation and experiment.
I enjoyed Ultima Ratio’s explanation of what religious liberty means in the light of Church teachings. The Church can’t say or promote the idea that people are free to believe in false religions i.e. free to go to Hell.
P
pnewton
Guest
Does the fact that they haven’t mean that they don’t?
If this has an open-ended “eventually” tacked on, then anyone can claim that enough time has not yet passed, including the most flaming modernist who might make such a claim about women’s ordination, for example.
L
Layman
Guest
The old rite has been allowed, once again. The excommunications of their Bishops have been rescinded. They are now having discussions about regularisation. Looks like they’re doing OK.
Women’s ordination has been formally ‘shot down’, I understand. Even if it wasn’t, the practical problem with novelty in religion is whether you can take enough people with you to maintain your cult. If they drift out the doors, or don’t show up at all, then it’s moribund or dead.
I think cults take three generations to show their worth; the founders die off and their children and grandchildren continue with it, or don’t. I’m not sure the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ sub-set of the Catholic Faith will last. I think it contains the seeds of its own destruction; religious liberality leading to indifference and ignorance.
The parents select what they want to believe and how they practice their faith and the children decide, on that basis, that it’s not that important or that their opinions trump Tradition and so don’t bother.
All the SSPX and traditionalist Catholics have to do is to keep going and wait.
P
pnewton
Guest
I do not think I would consider the SSPX a cult, but I except the differences you pointed out. Yes, the women’s ordination thing has been defined, though there are some that deny and debate that still.
- Status