Bp Fellay says total VII acceptance no longer a prerequisite!

[curlycool89]

Also, faith trumps obedience, when it comes right down to it.

So long as the person demanding obedience is not ordering you to sin or go against the 10 Commandments, your obedience is obliged, no matter what your opinions on faith are.

How can you as a person decide faith is above obedience though? How are you defining faith apart from the Church?

The Faith is unchanging, whereas obedience (to one’s superior) is not always required…such as when he contradicts the Faith, etc.

But who’s job is it to decide when something “contradicts the faith”? When you’re doing it yourself, then you’re no better then Protestants.

 

[Dom_Passeri]

So long as the person demanding obedience is not ordering you to sin or go against the 10 Commandments, your obedience is obliged, no matter what your opinions on faith are.

How can you as a person decide faith is above obedience though? How are you defining faith apart from the Church?

But who’s job is it to decide when something “contradicts the faith”? When you’re doing it yourself, then you’re no better then Protestants.

Not if it’s blatant. Ok, lemme rephrase: Obedience to GOD trumps obedience to one’s superior.

Better?

It doesn’t make you a protestant to resist doing something that is clearly harmful to somebody else, body or soul. What do you do if your superior tells you to lie for him? In a court of law? Hide evidence of molestation?

See, it’s correct to obey if there’s a question of whether a thing should be obeyed. Okay. But on the other hand, there are times when you just can’t obey your superior for the sake of obeying Christ.

 

[catharina]

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.

Applying those words to the posts of another member
is surely offensive - as you likely meant them to be.
Such a statement seems to make you judge, jury and executioner, IMO.

It adds a note of total hostillity to a thread.
If another member’s post
disturbs you then you report the post.
Don’t throw gasoline on the flames!

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thread closed pending review by moderator Thomas Casey.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

**MODERATOR NOTICE
**

I’ve deleted 95 posts and gave 37 infractions. I’m going to reopen the thread. Please speak about the original subject, not each other, not about the clergy, not about the popes, not about Archbishop Lefebvre or anything else that is not related to what Bishop Fellay said.

If I take the time to read 95 posts, I expect every adult on this thread to cooperate. Failure to comply may result in terminating your account.

 

[Rupert_of_SSPX]

I think a little clarification is in order on this topic. I agree that it would be very serious for any part of the Church to be a part of the Church and yet disagree with one or more of it’s councils/synods etc. The fact that the Vatican has entered into these negotiations with the SSPX should show us that great pains are being taken to re-examine the results of V-II and ensure that they are necessary and appropriate. Since our Pope, the Vatican and the SSPX are all seeking the truth of this matter (apart from a few private agenda on the parts of individuals) this issue should concern us all but should not be ‘of concern’ (that is to say worrying).
Whether V-II’s ‘resultant force’ is a desirable one or not and whether it (intentionally or otherwise) has given rise to a crisis in the Church is crucial here. This leads me to the necessitation of clarifying another point: To say that the so called excommunications of the SSPX bishops were lifted is non-specific. When an excommunication is ended (after a period of definite existence) the lifting is concommitant with a special confession and a public apology for and renunciation of the error concerned. Since neither was required for the lifting of the SSPX excommunications, I believe this is evidence sufficient that they were being revoked rather than ended.
The original cause of the excommunications was not heresy of course but un-authorized consecration of these bishops. In turn, whether this was a legitimate act or not hinges upon the emergency situation defined as ‘a crisis in The Church’. If the excommunications were in fact revoked, this is surely a Vatican admission that there is (or at the very least may be) a crisis in The Church. Feel free to comment on my logic but this is what the evidence seems to me to indicate.
If there is indeed a problem, don’t we all want it dealt with? Is it unbelievable that there might be such a crisis? Certainly not. Look to the Arian Heresy. The Church has been involved in such crises before to the point where clear heresy was the issue.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Here is the problem:

1. Proposition: You must obey the declarations of Vatican II, otherwise you are disobedient or a bad Catholic.
   1a. You must assent to the declaration that the Council, as a thing in itself, must be assented to.
2. What are the declarations of Vatican II that require such obedience?
3. Errr …
4. Trads: We don’t have to obey a Council that hasn’t declared anything binding.
5. Liberals: Therefore, you are disobedient!!!
6. Seems to be:

a. Collegiality
b. Ecumenism
c. Religious liberty
d. Leeway in religious rites.

Which themselves are subject to debate. I don’t know that not assenting to them will get you damned.

Nothing particularly striking in the Council documents, like the Immaculate Conception.

I think Vatican II, because it’s documents are not clear, is useful for anyone who wants to ‘nuance’ doctrine and discipline. Do that for 40 years and you get dancing at the Holy Sacrifice of The Mass.

You also end up going 'round in logical circles when trying to debate what the Council documents mean in practice and belief.

 

[Hesychios]

Here is the problem:

1. Proposition: You must obey the declarations of Vatican II, otherwise you are disobedient or a bad Catholic.
   1a. You must assent to the declaration that the Council, as a thing in itself, must be assented to.
2. What are the declarations of Vatican II that require such obedience?
3. Errr …
4. Trads: We don’t have to obey a Council that hasn’t declared anything binding.
5. Liberals: Therefore, you are disobedient!!!
6. Seems to be:

a. Collegiality
.

Actually, I think collegiality among bishops is a good thing, unless you mean something different by it.

Do some people think it is not a good thing?

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Actually, I think collegiality among bishops is a good thing, unless you mean something different by it.

Do some people think it is not a good thing?

I think the problem is that they think they are a law unto themselves. That they can ignore the Pope and Rome(?) Pope requests that bishops do something; feet get dragged. But I’m not sure.

 

[ProVobis]

I think the problem is that they think they are a law unto themselves. That they can ignore the Pope and Rome(?) Pope requests that bishops do something; feet get dragged. But I’m not sure.

I agree. There seem to be a lot of liturgical and other issues that depend on collegiality for implementation. But when the various synods seemingly end up setting up their own rules, ignoring Humanae Vitae for example, then it appears collegiality needs to be redefined.

 

[catharina]

I think the problem is that they think they are a law unto themselves. That they can ignore the Pope and Rome(?) Pope requests that bishops do something; feet get dragged. But I’m not sure.

Will you give some examples that you are referencing?

 

[dmartin11]

I just finished an amazing book on this subject, written in1987 by Malachi Martin, “The Jesuits.” It gives a full understanding of Vatican II - what it did and did not say - and its aftermath in the Church. Fascinating reading.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Will you give some examples that you are referencing?

Something like this, perhaps? I believe the subtext is: ‘more democracy’.
ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/OXFORD.HTM#n

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Actually, I think collegiality among bishops is a good thing, unless you mean something different by it.

Do some people think it is not a good thing?

I could not agree more - it should be encouraged and fostered.

 

[TrueLight]

Actually, I think collegiality among bishops is a good thing, unless you mean something different by it.

Do some people think it is not a good thing?

I could not agree more - it should be encouraged and fostered.

Why Hesychios and ByzCathCantor?

Is it because it fits the Eastern viewpoint better and sets the stage for a future reconcilation between East and West by minimizing the Primacy of the Pope?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

You mean like a certain person, who, even after the Pope requested that he ***NOT DO ***something, he went ahead and did it anyway, not just once, but 4 times!

I think the problem is that they think they are a law unto themselves. That they can ignore the Pope and Rome(?) Pope requests that bishops do something; feet get dragged. But I’m not sure.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Why Hesychios and ByzCathCantor?

Is it because it fits the Eastern viewpoint better and sets the stage for a future reconcilation between East and West by minimizing the Primacy of the Pope?

To answer your question we must first agree with the premise that collegiality somehow minimizes the Primacy of the Pope.

That is a false premise and therefore we are unable to answer your question.

So let me ask you. Can you show how collegiality minimizes the Primacy of the Pope?

 

[catharina]

Something like this, perhaps? I believe the subtext is: ‘more democracy’.
ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/OXFORD.HTM#n

The link you provided led me straight to an article that states this headline:**

"THE LOCAL CHURCHES AND THE CHURCH OF ROME

Archbishop Rembert Weakland

July 11, 1996 column in “The Catholic Herald.”"**

Was that your intent? Are you aware of the actions promoted and
exercised by the archbishop post-1996? An explanation from you might help.

 

[TrueLight]

To answer your question we must first agree with the premise that collegiality somehow minimizes the Primacy of the Pope.

That is a false premise and therefore we are unable to answer your question.

So let me ask you. Can you show how collegiality minimizes the Primacy of the Pope?

To answer your question we must first agree with the premise that collegiality somehow minimizes the Primacy of the Pope.

That is a false premise and therefore we are unable to answer your question.

So let me ask you. Can you show how collegiality minimizes the Primacy of the Pope?

Well, first let’s define Primacy: **The doctrine of papal primacy upholds the divine authority of the Successor of St. Peter to rule over the entire Church with ordinary and immediate jurisdiction.
ewtn.com/expert/answers/papal_primacy.htm
**

**
Papal Primacy as per Vatican I.**

In the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Vatican I, under Primacy, the Pope’s power is described as:

i) universal: it extends to the whole Church, i.e. to all the members of the Church (pastors and faithful) as to all the various matters which can arise;

ii) ordinary: it is not extraordinary, which would mean that it can be used only in exceptional circumstances; nor is it delegated, that is, it belongs inherently to the office of Pope and is not delegated to him by someone else;

iii) supreme: meaning that it is not subordinated to any other authority[32];

iv) full: it takes in all questions which might arise in the life of the Church, and does so from every point of view;

v) immediate: it need not be exercised through intermediaries and where necessary can have the most practical applications.

Also,

1. If anyone therefore should say that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspecting or directing, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in matters concerning the discipline and rule of the Church throughout the world; or that he has merely the principal part and not the full plenitude of this supreme power; or that his power is not ordinary and immediate, whether over each and all the churches, or over each and all the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. (De Ecclesia Christi, can. 3.)

  We, therefore, adhering faithfully to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Saviour, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and the salvation of the Christian people, teach and define, as a divinely revealed dogma, that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, discharging his office as pastor of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he then, by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, enjoys that infallibility by which the divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed when defining a doctrine of faith or morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church. Wherefore, if anyone should presume to contradict —which God forbid —let him be anathema. (De Romani Pontificis infallibili magisterio, cap. 4, can. 4.)

See the bolded part.
**
Collegiality as per Vatican II**
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0505799.htm

Effective collegiality is what the council describes in its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church when it says, "The order of bishops is the successor to the college of the apostles in their role as teachers and pastors, and in it the apostolic college is perpetuated. Together with their head, the supreme pontiff, and never apart from him, they have supreme and full authority over the universal church."

Affective collegiality refers to the sense of unity with the pope and the world’s bishops that ought to pervade the ministry of each bishop individually and the common actions of groups of bishops. Even though they do not act with the full authority held by the entire college of bishops gathered in council under the pope, bishops acting as individuals or in groups always “are related with and united to one another,” the document says.

The Pope’s power seems somewhat minimized to me.

Now, I don’t want to derail the thread and I am certainly not an expert on this, but I thought I’d answer your question to the best of my ability, right now, on this day, on my lunch hour.

 

[TimothyH]

The Pope’s power seems somewhat minimized to me.

I see neither conflict nor mutual exclusion.

The Pope’s power is supreme, and the Order of Bishops, together with the Pope have supreme and full authority over the universal church.

I don’t see what the issue is. It makes perfect sense to me.

-Tim-