Bp Fellay says total VII acceptance no longer a prerequisite!

  • Thread starter Thread starter LoyalViews
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dom_Passeri said:
Good.

How can Rome expect the faithful, practically speaking, to “totally recognize” something that is very confusing (Vat II docs) and, on the face of it, contrary to what the Church has previously taught, all without providing a clear explanation? Everybody knows that Vatican II wasn’t even a dogmatic council: there were no new dogmas defined. On the other hand, we have seen the dangers and destruction caused to the church as a body, and to millions of souls alike due to Vatican II’s “spirit”. It’s high time VII get in line with the rest of church history and officially say, with many an anathema, without any obfuscation or equivocation, what it means. Then we could all just get along.
Click to expand...
I recommend you read the following:

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

Vatican II is a scapegoat for things Vatican II never even suggested.

Peace,
Ed
 
Mike30 said:
If it is true, then it is what the Vatican has decided. It really doesn’t concern us at all.
Click to expand...
Of course it does. Why does a group get exemptions? The next thing you know other groups will be crying out for their exemptions. We should all fall in the same line. If we let someone not on the same line, nobody will want to be in one line. Chaos ensues.
 
Dom_Passeri said:
Perhaps the most hilarious thing of all is the one person attempting to remain as orthodox as possible (whether you agree with his means and his ends) was pretty much the only one who was ever censured in a sea of truly heretical and schismatic clergymen who are still spewing garbage, even to this day.
Click to expand...
That to me is the most troubling aspect of all of this at present. There are clergymen out there preaching that the Pope is a liar (if not worse) - a post with a link to an audio recording of a homily of a priest in the Phillipines was in another recent thread. I listened to it, and was truly shocked by the message and tenor of the sermon.

At some level, a very fundamentally anti-Catholic sentiment exists, and it is unclear at present how that will be addressed (among other things). It is far beyond a cry for traditional Catholicism or reassessment of VII.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Then why make a fuss about it? If it teaches something that has already been taught before, then there shouldn’t be a problem about accepting it. Councils decide the direction of the Church. The entire Church should follow what the council decides. Its the same with Eastern Churches and their synods. Our bishops in the Ukrainian Catholic Church held a synod last year, and they will hold another one this year here in Canada. They make decisions for the entire Church, that is why it is a synod. There is no opt out of it. Nothing dogmatic is defined in those synods.
Click to expand...
The central concerns having nothing to do with questioning the validity of the council or if it contained errors, but a genuine theological discussion over the ambiguous language used with subjects such as religious freedom and relations with non-Christians. If it can be demonstrated that the centrality of these issues are not Christocentric or minimal in nature of Christ then those issues need to be revisited to convey the fullness of the faith. Such a stance is not contrary or dissent of pastoral teachings of Vatican II but a call to hermeneutics of continuity from an official position. I don’t know if this ever crossed the minds of those in SSPX but traditionalists in the Church (the real heroes who go by the book and fight a holy battle, not stand outside and wait for Rome to change) assent to the pastoral teachings of the council, even in these issues, and expound, unofficially, the fullness of the faith. The problem is that we shouldn’t have to do this unofficially. You’d think with the largest amount of documents written in history of councils, who’s very purpose was to expound on all subjects using modern language and tone with exactitude, you wouldn’t have to defend issues like this to such degrees. The other problem is that without proper catechesis, those official positions can be taken at face value and create a mess of bad theology. In the end, we shouldn’t need everything spelled out from an official source to inform and teach those from within and without, but as it stands we live in an age where the expression “if it isn’t written, I don’t have to believe it” is prevalent.
 
TS_Aquinas said:
The central concerns having nothing to do with questioning the validity of the council or if it contained errors, but a genuine theological discussion over the ambiguous language used with subjects such as religious freedom and relations with non-Christians. If it can be demonstrated that the centrality of these issues are not Christocentric or minimal in nature of Christ then those issues need to be revisited to convey the fullness of the faith. Such a stance is not contrary or dissent of pastoral teachings of Vatican II but a call to hermeneutics of continuity from an official position. I don’t know if this ever crossed the minds of those in SSPX but traditionalists in the Church (the real heroes who go by the book and fight a holy battle, not stand outside and wait for Rome to change) assent to the pastoral teachings of the council, even in these issues, and expound, unofficially, the fullness of the faith. The problem is that we shouldn’t have to do this unofficially. You’d think with the largest amount of documents written in history of councils, who’s very purpose was to expound on all subjects using modern language and tone with exactitude, you wouldn’t have to defend issues like this to such degrees. The other problem is that without proper catechesis, those official positions can be taken at face value and create a mess of bad theology. In the end, we shouldn’t need everything spelled out from an official source to inform and teach those from within and without, but as it stands we live in an age where the expression “if it isn’t written, I don’t have to believe it” is prevalent.
Click to expand...
You make a very good point here. But it is still antithetical to be in communion with Rome and reject even her pastoral teachings. Communion demands that we breathe the same air and the same blood flows in our bodies. When we are in communion we are one body, the same way our Communion of Christ makes us one body with Christ. If the SSPX is regularized and exercise full communion with Rome and yet they are exempted from certain things they disagree with, then that is not being in communion.
 
ConstantineTG said:
You make a very good point here. But it is still antithetical to be in communion with Rome and reject even her pastoral teachings. Communion demands that we breathe the same air and the same blood flows in our bodies. When we are in communion we are one body, the same way our Communion of Christ makes us one body with Christ. If the SSPX is regularized and exercise full communion with Rome and yet they are exempted from certain things they disagree with, then that is not being in communion.
Click to expand...
I agree with SanctusPeccator, I’ll wait on commenting on “Rome no longer makes total acceptance of Vatican II a prerequisite for the canonical solution” and listen from an official source to get the details rather then jumping to conclusions over what Bishop Fellay said. Not to question what he said was true or not but as always, there’s more to it.
 
thistle said:
What credit is due to Bishop Williamson who is a nazi sympathiser and holocaust denier??
Click to expand...
I could likewise ask what credit is due pedophile priests and their enablers in the seminaries, cathedrals, and in the vatican who have driven millions away from the one true faith?

You see, two can play this game, but you are only scoring points with the unthinking masses of people who react viscerally to the POLITICAL catch-phrases du jour. What’s worse: holding an erroneous position on a piece of secular history, or scandalizing and sexually molesting children? If you want to slam Bishop Williamson, I hope you’re willing to slam a bunch of sickos twice as often, and twice as hard.

Your beligerent and asinine comments have nothing to do with anything in the thread, just as a falsely-held point of SECULAR history has nothing to do with the FAITH of one of the princes of the Church and the good work he does in his office and capacity as a shepherd to souls.
 
mytruepower2 said:
As a member of the authentic Church Militant, I side with the Pope if it comes to that.
Click to expand...
Are there members of an inauthentic Church Militant? Just curious.

Also, faith trumps obedience, when it comes right down to it.
 
ByzCathCantor said:
Respectfully, it is the overall tone and demeanor of the post that is objectionable.
Click to expand...
Ok, then go back a few and find the one to which I responded…

As far as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with either word I used, but the same can’t be said for insulting a prince of the church.
 
Dom_Passeri said:
As far as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with either word I used …
Click to expand...
Again, diction is not the issue. A more charitable approach may be more effective in trying to make your point or voice an objection.
 
TS_Aquinas said:
And what of Matt 7:21-27?
Click to expand...
The Faith is unchanging, whereas obedience (to one’s superior) is not always required…such as when he contradicts the Faith, etc.

Ok, now I’ll look at drbo.org.

[21] Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. [22] Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? [23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. [24] Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, [25] And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock.

[26] And every one that heareth these my words, and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand, [27] And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof.

I fail to grasp…
 
ByzCathCantor said:
Perhaps a “time out” is in order - the dialogue here has really taken a turn for the worse …
Click to expand...
Indeed. That’s why I stopped commenting 😦

This is old news now…I never had expected this post to ring out as it did.
 
Dom_Passeri said:
Are there members of an inauthentic Church Militant? Just curious.

Also, faith trumps obedience, when it comes right down to it.
Click to expand...
I’m not too sure I’m too comfortable with that statement. Abraham comes to mind.

If we claim to work within the framework of the Church, then we will define faith the way the Church defines faith, as one of the three theological virtues. We accept everything God has revealed to us through the Church, not because we understand it, or becuase we like it or agree with it, or because it makes sense, but because it is revealed to us. Faith is the acceptance of revealed truth.

Paul says that faith leads to obedience.

Through him we have received the grace of apostleship, to bring about the obedience of faith, for the sake of his name, among all the Gentiles. (Romans 1:5)

Peter says that obedience leads to love.

Since you have purified yourselves by obedience to the truth for sincere mutual love, love one another intensely from a [pure] heart. (1 Peter 1:22)

And John says that love leads to perfection.

*No one has ever seen God. Yet, if we love one another, God remains in us, and his love is brought to perfection in us. (1 John 4:12). *

And if there is one thing that sets Catholics apart from other Christians, it is the belief that we have to be perfect to enter heaven.

The progression from realization of who God is, to acceptance of what he reveals to us, to obedience through humility and meekness, to mercy, peacemaking and love, and ultimately to persecurion for the sake of Christ is the whole point of the beatitudes in Matthew 5:

I don’t think faith can ever trump obedience, but rather obedience is the natural result of faith.

-Tim-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top