Could these words actually have come from the mouth of a Supreme Pontiff?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rf9661
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
1Lord1Faith said:
I wonder what is the purpose of this ^ entire paragraph. There is nothing ambiguous about what Paul VI said there unless a person just doesn’t know much about Catholicism. To interpret that quote through the syllabus of errors is almost laughable if it wasn’t also so sad and concerning.
Click to expand...
Agree. I don’t understand how this thread suddenly turned into some lengthy apologia for SSPX, which nobody brought up and quite frankly it had not even crossed my mind. Seems way off topic to me.
 
Last edited:
Cor_ad_Cor said:
There’s simply nothing wrong with it whether he said it or not. In fact, it reads very much like a statement I would expect any pope to make.
Click to expand...
@Cor_ad_Cor @Tis_Bearself
To my amazement, the two quotes in the translations that I was reading didn’t seem to shock anyone. Not even friends I had texted it to.

The two quotes, to me, were horrid. In the first one, His Holiness appears to be trying to separate the secular life, from the life of a Christian and appears to be attempting to make Christianity easier to abide by. I have problems with both of those statements. Firstly, Christ wants to permeate our very being and wants a role in everything we do. Why would we try to exclude Him and place Him on the sidelines when it comes to the secular? Secondly, why would anyone want to make Christianity “easier” to follow? That would practically mean undoing thousands of years of Tradition to make it more accepting of error, no?

In the second quote, although using the word “worshippers” is a bit extreme when it comes to the translation that the Vatican produced, His Holiness is
calling on the secular humanists to praise the Council for the work it has done. I see a grave problem if a Council is serving the secular.
otjm said:
The third post after you has the document; you can verify what part of the document may be quoted, and what part does not coincide.
Click to expand...
@otjm
After reading the translation from the Vatican site which @Emeraldlady posted, it puts it into a MUCH different light than the translation that I was reading… very different.
 
It may appear off-topic at first, but the quotes are from a letter published by Fr. Marc Vernoy, SSPX, who is the Prior at St. Thomas More Church and Priory.
 
I would agree here. I don’t think the Magisterium would be making up new teachings as time went on. Even if new scenarios and situations arise, it only ever expands/expounds on teaching that has already been established.
 
rf9661 said:
It may appear off-topic at first, but the quotes are from a letter published by Fr. Marc Vernoy, SSPX, who is the Prior at St. Thomas More Church and Priory.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the explanation. I was truly mystified. Still not seeing what the problem is with the quotes from St. Pope Paul VI.
 
I explained my problems with the quotes with the translations that I had above: Could these words actually have come from the mouth of a Supreme Pontiff? - #27 by rf9661 (it’ll link you to the post itself)

If the translation I was using stands, then my problems with the quotes stand. If the translation from the Vatican stands, then it appears there’s just an issue in translation, in which case my problems with the quotes wouldn’t have as much standing if any.
 
Emeraldlady said:
The second paragraph is from the closing speech of Vatican II on 7th December, 1965.

Secular humanism, revealing itself in its horrible anti-clerical reality has, in a certain sense, defied the council. The religion of the God who became man has met the religion (for such it is) of man who makes himself God. And what happened? Was there a clash, a battle, a condemnation? There could have been, but there was none. The old story of the Samaritan has been the model of the spirituality of the council. A feeling of boundless sympathy has permeated the whole of it. The attention of our council has been absorbed by the discovery of human needs (and these needs grow in proportion to the greatness which the son of the earth claims for himself). But we call upon those who term themselves modern humanists, and who have renounced the transcendent value of the highest realities, to give the council credit at least for one quality and to recognize our own new type of humanism: we, too, in fact, we more than any others, honor mankind.

Here he is basically contrasting secular humanism which makes man into a God with Christian humanism which honors man as a creature made by and for God and worthy of great love and care.
Click to expand...
Honoring mankind is fine. Worshiping mankind is not. Two different things entirely.
 
I totally agree with this and is the point I was trying to make above.

I would even be careful with saying that one honors mankind. I would add that we honor mankind as God’s creation. It’s the same way how we honor nature, or any other beauty: as God’s creation.
 
This is the type of subtleties that take time devoting to discover plus the out of context.
We ve already been to rodeo, haven’t we?
 
The problem is that there are those who misinterpret the teachings and writings of vatican II with the same skill that they misinterpret the Sacred Scriptures.
 
rf9661 said:
I totally agree with this and is the point I was trying to make above.

I would even be careful with saying that one honors mankind. I would add that we honor mankind as God’s creation. It’s the same way how we honor nature, or any other beauty: as God’s creation.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I honor mankind as being “fearfully and wonderfully made”, in the image and likeness of God, and teach my son to see Christ in even the most wretched and (to our senses) repulsive human person. I remind him that a homeless person we help may be Jesus taking the form of a beggar to test us and to see how we treat “the least of our brothers”.
 
From the bottom of my heart, I don’t want to argue.
I respect whatever people may think and believe in, what I personally …don’t like is to be sort of dragged into clicking sources that from the very start I know lead to trouble.
We have to sometimes , so as to shed some light but also very sincerely , it has been many years doing this and I am personally tired of it and find it boring to some extent. I cannot be more honest with you.
I m going out to the sun for a walk right now. Have a very good day and enjoy it, Rose
 
Last edited:
Is this one of those threads where people mostly agree with one another but look for points of contention anyway?
 
Ehhhh… yes and no.
We seem to be agreeing at the end result, but it’s very clouded nonetheless.
There are still grave disagreements.
 
For the same reason why after 500 years people are misinterpreting the same Bible. And it is no shock that there are scoundrels, wolves and faithless bishops and priests misinterpreting the documents of Vatican II with the same skill that Protestants misinterpret the Sacred Scriptures to argue against the Catholic Church. The problem is that people are reading the internet instead of studying the Catechism.
Watch Pope Benedict XVI speaking about the false Vatican II and the true Vatican II:

 
Will watch this soon, am interested to how he will explain it.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Vatican II is a pastoral council, and therefore should not have made any changes in teachings, correct?

(I don’t have an ulterior motive to this question by the way, I am genuinely curious.)
 
Last edited:
Maybe there should be a clarification of said ambiguous documents to prevent any further discussion upon the topic…
 
As Pope Benedict explained, there was the true Spirit behind the Council, and then the false spirit presented by the media, which swept in a false narrative. Vatican II must be interpreted in the light of Church Tradition, not individual whims, which is where the abuses come in.

Question; what part of the Catechism fo you find confusing?

As for the media narrative on Vatican II, as Fr. Hardon would always say, the modern media is engaged in a luciferina conspiracy against the truth

 
Last edited:
rf9661 said:
Maybe there should be a clarification of said ambiguous documents to prevent any further discussion upon the topic…
Click to expand...
It’s been clarified on occasion for the past 50 years. It will likely be clarified again in years to come.

The problem is that our modern culture tends to make things unclear, no matter how much they are clarified; not just for V2 but other things. It’s the glory days of skepticism.

Just as there are people who keep muddying the water on the JFK assassination, so they can sell their new book to “clarify”, to pull the cover off the coverup…there are websites that justify their existence on The Need For Clarification on V2.

Do you think they will ever post this:
“Ok, the V2 docs are clear enough now. No need to support this ministry now. We are satisfied.”
 
Last edited:
Agreed. Some new challenges have arisen, not foreseen then. That doesn’t invalidate what is there, nor are the challenges necessarily caused by ambiguity.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top