A
- Status
R
Revert_43
Guest
So, that’s a pretty bold statement. Could you provide specifics, i.e. quotes from the V II documents, that are in conflict with Catholic Dogma? Not your definition of Catholic Tradition but Catholic Dogma.
Just so we’re clear, I’m not a fan in the changes in the liturgy and the de-emphasis of the Eucharist and Mary since V II but your statement above makes me think you’ve been watching a little too many the Dimond Brothers videos.
Remember specifically what Jesus said in Matthew 16:17-19
drbo.org/chapter/47016.htm
If you’re really a Catholic Traditionalist then going against the Pope and Magisterium is NOT tradition and is conflict with what Jesus said.
Please also read
blog.fisheaters.com/catholic-life/the-errors-of-traditional-catholics/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+VocesTraditionis+%28Voces+Traditionis%29
W
Will_S
Guest
The teachings of Vatican II are infallible insofar as they repeat previous dogmatic teaching. Some things in the documents of Vatican II do seem to contradict outright doctrinal statements by preconciliar popes. However, those doctrinal statements were not dogmatic, so the problem is not that the Church flip-flops on dogma. The problem is that we need clarity from the Church on how these apparent contradictions are to be resolved.
It is true that many people act as if there was no Church before Vatican II, or as if the preconciliar Church was swept away and replaced by something completely different. That is a problem. But it is not a problem with the teaching magisterium, but rather more with academic theologians, certain laymen, and some portion of the clergy (mostly those who were seminarians or young priests at the time of the council).
Do not call Vatican II the work of Satan. First off, you will probably be suspended here. Second off, the Holy Spirit protected the council from attempting to dogmatize error, so we don’t have to worry about the deposit of faith. Yes, it is true that the devil seems to have had a field day in the immediate wake of Vatican II, but nonetheless it is inappropriate to call an ecumenical council of the Church – that is, the council itself, and not the things that accompanied and followed the council – a “work of Satan”.
R
RevertAlan
Guest
:whacky: about some of the previous posts, they seemed to get emotional very quickly. That can’t be good for dialogue in seeking the truth.
It might be better for me to be spectator in this exchange of dialogue between someone who calls himself a former Catholic (was previously posted as an atheist), and someone who calls himself a young traditional Catholic, though seems to have the opinion about Vatican II that opposed all previous doctrine and dogma ( did I capture this correctly ?). I don’t have the context to debate either.
I am a student seeking the truth and I must think that it still resides in the visible Catholic Church founded by Jesus and also protected in truth by the Holy Spirit. I still believe the Catholic Church is One, Holy, Apostolic, and Catholic. I haven’t read anything that convinces me otherwise. I will consider evidence and not hearsay.
I have been trying to discover why Pope Paul VI removed the statements of Oath against Modernism from the profession of faith. From what I have read in the Concise History of the Catholic Church on the matter, it seems the Oath Against Modernism accomplished its goal. There is a Oath of Fidelity to the teachings of the Church and magisterium that is in place.
R
RevertAlan
Guest
How do you defend that the CCC should not be accepted by Catholics, and is the work of Satan?
I would like you to provide specifics of teachings of Vatican II that contradicted previous teachings.
Peace of Christ Brother.
B
Bl_Pope_Pius_IX
Guest
I wouldnt as much say that the Second Vatican Council “contradicted” previous teachings but I do remember reading that the Vatican II teaching “Dignitatis Humanae” which discussed Religious Freedom, was condemned by His Holiness Blessed Pius IX. I am not fully positive if it was condemned in His Holinesses Syllabus of Errors.
Blessed Pius IX was, for those of you that do not know, the Pope that convened the First Vatican Council. I will look into if Dignitatis Humanae was actually condemned previously.
Pius :knight1:
R
RevertAlan
Guest
I know you have since posted you have left this thread, though in case you return I am making this post to you. I am sorry you feel hurt by the teachings and actions of conservatives. I don’t know what happened, though as a Christian I don’t want you to be hurt. However, more importantly I don’t want teachings to contradict the truth and Jesus. I write this and am thinking Love the Sinner and Hate the Sin. We are all sinners and need to come to Jesus for His love and forgiveness.
I encourage you to return home to the Catholic Church. I will pray for you, please pray for me.
A
ajpirc
Guest
Let me begin with this: I can’t stand the Dimond Brothers.
As Jesus said, “…and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” He didn’t also say that the gates of Hell shall not try to prevail against Her either, did He? Satan is always trying to destroy and prevail against the Church. We can always find moments in the history of the Church when Satan tries to destroy the Church, that is if you believe it’s Satan. One of them, as we all know, was the Protestant Reformation. The heresies that have arisen. There have been anti-Popes in Church history. The Great Schism. Do you think Satan has tried to stop after nearly 2000 years of failure? I believe Vatican II was one of his methods to destroy the Church. Christ said in Matthew 7:
Vatican II had come to us as a sheep, as a “renewal” in the Church. Where’s that renewal?
Has Vatican II brought forth any good fruit after its “spirit” was supposed to bring a “renewal?” Let’s find out: Catholic Decline
Pope Paul VI’s own words also to end my post:
And;
I will have to answer the rest of your post tomorrow for I am very tired and have a soccer tournament tomorrow, sorry.
R
RevertAlan
Guest
I think the document that you want to compare to Dignitatis Humanae (DH) is the Quanta Cura (QC) Encyclical by Pope Pius IX. I read QC and DH and didn’t find anything contradictory. I think there are distinctions that QC is addressing the moral issue of liberty of conscience and worship and the moral obligation to inform the conscience rightly in conformity to the teachings of Jesus and His Church. AMEN!
DH is addressing the civil issue of religious freedom and that humans who possess dignity because we are made in the image of God, have the right to exercise religious choice without coercion. This seems to be in line with God respecting our free will.
DH states the following, which I think Pope Pius IX would agree with.
I don’t read any hints of modernism or indifferentism into this paragraph.
I look forward to reading what you discover that Pope Pius IX or any other Pope wrote that condemns or contradicts Vatican II documents. For the record, I agree that the aftermath of Vatican II hasn’t been good. However, I don’t know how this can be directly attributable to the Vatican II council. I would say that the implementation was rushed and in error from the actual documents. I would also say that there were many liberal Catholics who saw Vatican II as an opportunity to inject their falsehoods into the implementation of Vatican II. I don’t know if the bishops fell asleep at the wheel or what. Regardless, I know that many remain confident that the Church will survive and the Holy Spirit will remain faithful to guide the church in truth. I pray for the Pope, Bishops, clergy, religious, and laity to continue to seek God and grow in holiness.
Peace of Christ brother!
B
Bl_Pope_Pius_IX
Guest
Firstly, I dont believe the Council Fathers built off of Quanta Cura when they wrote up (for lack of better terms) Dignitatis Humanae, for I dont think they cited the former. I was more talking about the contradiction of DH to the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX. Predominantly Dh’s contradiction to Section VI which deals with the erros of civil society, considered in itself and in its relation to the Church.
However, during a quick google search of Quanta Cura and Dignitatis Humanae, I came across this:
catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=3356901.0
Which I believe is very relevent to the topic we’re discussing, and I invite you to take a look at it.
Also, hearkening back to the Syllabus of Errors, Section III number 15 of the Syllabus, it states:
I believe that this CLEARLY contradicts Dignitatis Humanae, especially since DH states the following:
This website may assist my cause further (it is quite lengthy, so may I draw to your attention the section “A Problem of Contradiction”
superflumina.org/dignitatis_humanae_1.html
Let it be known, that I DO follow and abide by the Second Vatican Council, and I dont directly blame the Council Fathers for the trouble in and outside of the Church today. I constantly pray for the Holy Father, the Bishops, the Princes of Our Holy Mother Church, and the Priests and laymen. I am, likewise, confidant that the Church will recover, for the forces of Hell will not prevail against Her.
Many Priests, though especially laymen, gave Vatican II a bad name, by scapegoating their abuses on the “Spirit of Vatican II”. That is a frequent topic in the forums.
God Bless you, I must also say that I find your defence of the Faith MORE than commendable and very respectable.
In Christ,
Pius :knight1:
R
RevertAlan
Guest
Friend,
What does Pope Pius IX mean by this statement?
Every man is coerced to embrace and profess that religion which the government, shall consider true.
I think we can agree on this. How would the above error be rephrased to be valid? Without more context I could interpret that to mean that I am not free to embrace and profess the Catholic faith, which by the light of reason I consider true. I certainly don’t think this is what Pope Pius IX meant. Help me understand this as you do.
As I read Dignitatis Humanae, it is clear that religious freedom means immunity from coercion, and not what I think Pope Pius is addressing, which is liberty of conscience and worship.
Please let me know if I have a wrong interpretation of what Pope Pius IX intends.
God Bless
What does Pope Pius IX mean by this statement?
Taken in context, he proclaims the above to be an error, though I don’t think he means the following.
Every man is coerced to embrace and profess that religion which the government, shall consider true.
I think we can agree on this. How would the above error be rephrased to be valid? Without more context I could interpret that to mean that I am not free to embrace and profess the Catholic faith, which by the light of reason I consider true. I certainly don’t think this is what Pope Pius IX meant. Help me understand this as you do.
As I read Dignitatis Humanae, it is clear that religious freedom means immunity from coercion, and not what I think Pope Pius is addressing, which is liberty of conscience and worship.
I don’t think you are saying that Pope Pius IX either in Syllabus of Errors or Quanta Cura is advocating coercion on individuals for a prescribed form of religious expression. As I understand it, we each have to bear personal responsibility for binding our conscience to the Gods will and His Church, which remains One, Holy, Apostolic, & Catholic (Universal), and we are not free (released) from this personal responsibility. I suspect this is the essence of what Pope Pius IX is addressing, particularly when his encyclicals are in the context of modernism which erroneously argue that individuals own conscience has authority and causation of morals. This denies the truth that God is the author of morals for our own good.
Please let me know if I have a wrong interpretation of what Pope Pius IX intends.
God Bless
B
Bl_Pope_Pius_IX
Guest
Hello, again!
First, I beg forgiveness for not sharing this with you first:
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm
That is the Syllabus of Errors, I must direct you to Section VI
Anyway, I can agree that by number 15 section III, he does not mean: Every man is coerced to embrace and profess that religion which the government, shall consider true.
However, I do believe that it could be interperated as such and therefore makes it a broad statement. Albeit, it could mean different things. I am certainly not saying that Bl Pope Pius IX was advocating a prescribed form of religious expression. This is reiterated by Gregory XVI 's Encyclical “Mirari Vos” which oddly has to do with liberalism. However, it should be noted that Pius IX also condemned:
I interpret “kings and princes” to mean the government, showing that Pius IX condemned civil authorities being superior to the Church. And by Church, I mean the faithful. In fact, Section VI of the Syllabus lists many errors of civil society to do with the Church.
Admittedly, I do not have an answer to:
I can only remark that I do believe that His Holiness (Pius IX) believed that a man needed more than reason, however I have no basis for that claim, so I will leave it at that.
I do believe that Gregory XVI, Pius IX, and even Leo XIII (the third, to an extant) condemn reason over religion in general, whether to do with civil society or otherwise. That is also why I believe the error (Sec. III num. 15) was so broad, as it could encompass both civil society and otherwise. I dont think it is any coincidence that plenty of the Encyclicals cited in the Syllabus of Errors have to deal with Religious “liberty” and expression.
It must also be reminded that Dignitatis Humanae (indirectly or directly depending upon interpretation) defends the separartion of Church and State. This lack of “coercion” from the state to any religious belief. However this clearly contradicts section VI number 55:
This, therefore, condones (or rather endorses) a set state religion. As usually shown in history, the people of a nation are usually coerced by a state religion. I severely doubt His Holiness was ignorant to this, and therefore endorsed it.
You must forgive me for citing Wikipedia, however the wikipedia article of Quanta Cura shows that Dignitatis Humanae went against the condemnations of Quanta Cura, I urge you to read it:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quanta_Cura
Also, as it is 5:30 AM here, if my responses seem rushed or strange, forgive me! I may also be asleep when you return, so also forgive me if the time between responses is too big.
God bless you and maybe good night.
R
RevertAlan
Guest
Good Morning!
The comment about separation of church and state is interesting, I will have to review Dignitatis Humanae again for mention on this topic. I don’t recall reading this, though may have missed it.
What is your opinion of Pope Paul VI? What do you think of the authority of the Vatican II documents? What about subsequent popes.
I need to learn more about precedence of Vatican documents, and how infallibility applies. I know that not everything a pope says is infallible or even impeccable.
I think that if documents from two different popes appear contradictory, then we must first look at our own interpretation as being in error. We don’t have the authority to declare a pope is in error. I know that I am not holier than the pope.
Thanks for the dialogue, it is helping me learn more about Vatican II documents and some of the controversy. It is good to be more informed.
Good Day!
The comment about separation of church and state is interesting, I will have to review Dignitatis Humanae again for mention on this topic. I don’t recall reading this, though may have missed it.
What is your opinion of Pope Paul VI? What do you think of the authority of the Vatican II documents? What about subsequent popes.
I need to learn more about precedence of Vatican documents, and how infallibility applies. I know that not everything a pope says is infallible or even impeccable.
I think that if documents from two different popes appear contradictory, then we must first look at our own interpretation as being in error. We don’t have the authority to declare a pope is in error. I know that I am not holier than the pope.
Thanks for the dialogue, it is helping me learn more about Vatican II documents and some of the controversy. It is good to be more informed.
Good Day!
B
Bl_Pope_Pius_IX
Guest
Good morning to you as well!
His Holiness, Paul VI used to be a man of great detestment in my mind. mainly because I believed he had been the one that caused all the abuses, all the trouble. However, as I read of him, the more I grow to admire him. He inherited a rough spot in time. He was caught in a complicated scenario that needed to be finished. But sadly, the abuses that were caused (indirectly) from Vatican II occured practically immediately, as shown in the following letter from an American Priest to His Holiness that I have read twice and it struck me both times.
latinmass-ctm.org/pub/archive.htm
Now, the authority of the Vatican II documents seemed, to me atleast, be reaching out rather then in. Albeit they were ecumenical, which makes sense since it was an ecumenical council afterall. I serve at both the EF and the OF, but I prefer the EF.
Subsequent popes are certainly valid, I am not a sedevacantist and I love all the Holy Father’s (except Pope Stephen VI). Sedevacantist is a radical idea, some have even elected their own Popes. For example there is a fellow out in Kansas or somewhere that goes by the name Pope Michael I, he was elected by his mom, dad, and a couple friends I think.
The infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff is only in regards to Doctrines concerning faith and morals, and has only been carried out once since 1870, and that was to deal with the Assumption of Mary (many argue it was also carried out in 1846 when Blessed Pius IX defined the Immaculate Conception).
I must also agree about the interpretations of the Pope’s. Ours is not to reason why. Out of obedience we are to accept. However, constructively questioning is not beyond our limits, and I believe it is a healthy thing to do and should be encouraged.
I must also thank you for the dialogue as well. it was fun and at a couple points I felt I was beat. Good discussion regardless.
Good day, and God bless you.
R
RevertAlan
Guest
A thread on Dignitatis Humanae, that offers some good information.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=557402
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=557402
R
RevertAlan
Guest
Back to the Oath Against Modernism and some thoughts.
If all priest had to take this oath until 1967, and there are some who claim that Vatican II was essentially modernist in its thinking, then this would prove that the oath either wasn’t effective or the claim is wrong. I don’t know how they can claim on one hand that the council was in modernist error and acted contrary to the oath, and that the oath needs to be reinstated when all priest who attended Vatican II had taken the oath. This seems to be contradictory. For the record I recognize modernism as a heresy that goes by the name of relativism today and the Church needs to remain vigilant to keep this from infiltrating doctrine. Fortunately, Pope Benedict XVI is wise to this.
ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfoath.htm
While it doesn’t explicitly mention taking an oath against modernism, it does require avoiding any teachings contrary to the deposit of faith. This most certainly includes moderism and any other heresy.
Yes the Holy Spirit will protect and guide the Church in truth, though I think our participation is beneficial. It is also good to thank our priest and express our appreciation of their faithfulness to the truth and their service.
If all priest had to take this oath until 1967, and there are some who claim that Vatican II was essentially modernist in its thinking, then this would prove that the oath either wasn’t effective or the claim is wrong. I don’t know how they can claim on one hand that the council was in modernist error and acted contrary to the oath, and that the oath needs to be reinstated when all priest who attended Vatican II had taken the oath. This seems to be contradictory. For the record I recognize modernism as a heresy that goes by the name of relativism today and the Church needs to remain vigilant to keep this from infiltrating doctrine. Fortunately, Pope Benedict XVI is wise to this.
Lets continue to pray for defense of the truth of Jesus Christ and His body on earth, the Catholic Church.
This is a link to the current Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity to the Magisterium of the Holy Roman Catholic Church
ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfoath.htm
While it doesn’t explicitly mention taking an oath against modernism, it does require avoiding any teachings contrary to the deposit of faith. This most certainly includes moderism and any other heresy.
I think it would be good for the laity to know this profession of faith and oath of fidelity and if we observe clergy practicing to the contrary, that we approach them first in charity to express our concerns they are giving voice to heresy. If we are correct in our observations and they persist then we should inform the Bishop and request he take action.
Yes the Holy Spirit will protect and guide the Church in truth, though I think our participation is beneficial. It is also good to thank our priest and express our appreciation of their faithfulness to the truth and their service.
B
Bl_Pope_Pius_IX
Guest
Though I believe the Oath against Modernism was particularly effective in its early years, as it became older it came into disuse. For instance, I know quite a few Priests and a few Bishops that (because they were ordained before 1967) took the Oath, and frankly they are no different than the the post 1967 ordained priests. One of the Bishops I know who was ordained before 1967 assisted in the Second Vatican Council, and even became a monsignor because of his participation. He became a Bishop not long after.
But this should not be said against their character, because for many the Second Vatican Council was not (atleast at the time) a modernist idea. It was not fueled by modernist ideaologies, atleast that I know of. I must also commend the Holy Father, Benedict XVI for His Holinesses conservatism and faithfulness (including his time as Cardinal).
I think the problem excluding modernism from the Oath of fidelity is that in doing so, they undermine modernism. In other words, they act as if its not as important, when it is. If it wasn’t, Pope’s from Gregory XVI and onwards wouldn’t have taken note of it. I thank God that I haven’t encountered any liturgical abuses yet. Though the Priests I deal with are of a certain Order or from the Diocese, and the latter celebrate the EF. The problem with approaching the culprits of the said abuse first, is that they already probably KNOW what their doing is wrong. Thankfully, I am familiar with my regional Bishop and I’d like to think he’s familiar with me.
Our participatiojn in the fight for the future of the Church is more than beneficial, it is crucial. The participation of the entire Church (militant, sorrowing, and triumphant) is of great importance. Our prayers are the least we can offer, certainly. That is why every night I say the Prayer for Church unity and the prayer for loyalty to Holy Mother Church.
R
RevertAlan
Guest
Well said! are you sure you are 16, you act wise beyond most your age and even other juveniles in the 20’s, 30’s, 40’s, etc. Keep up the good work and thank God for how he is working in your life.
T
TrueLight
Guest
Wow is a 40 year old a juvenile = young? Yay!
B
Bl_Pope_Pius_IX
Guest
Thank you sir! And yes, I’m pretty sure I’m 16. Though when I was growing up, my mother would say I was a “60 year old trapped in a kids body”. But if you ask me a question about math or science, I doubt I’d be able to answer you correctly! One must be reminded of the child Jesus in the temple with the scholars and the rabbi’s in Luke:
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not claiming to be on the same wavelength as Jesus, but that one verse should inspire all young people to excel academically, but especially theologically.
I must thank you for the fruitful discussion, I have really enjoyed it.
God bless you!
- Status