It needs reiterating: The Second Vatican Council was pastoral, not dogmatic! (With a note concerning the SSPX)

[Ahimsa]

Yes they believed that the Declaration on Religious Liberty states that every kind of religion has the right to proagate itself.

Do you think one implication of the Declaration is that, non-Christians (Jewish, Buddhists, Muslims, etc.) have a right to propagate themselves (via marriage and child-bearing, and missionary work)? Because it’s kind of hard to see a “religion” actually propagating itself, outside of religous believers propagating themselves.

 

[Thursday1]

.They are still following the beliefs of their founder Archbishop Lefebvre .

I guess this needs repeating:
http://www.crc-internet.org/images/sig.jpg
I + Marcel Lefebvre, titular Archbishop of Synnada in Phrygia. (On the next line, Mgr Lefebvre signed in the name of Mgr Auguste Grimault, titular bishop of Maximianopolis in Palestine.)

Why would he sign the document if he believed it heresy?

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

 

[BobCatholic]

Yes they believed that the Declaration on Religious Liberty states that every kind of religion has the right to proagate itself. That is why they voted against it. This is why, to this day, the SSPX still has a problem with the Declaration. They are still following the beliefs of their founder Archbishop Lefebvre .

This is not what I said.

*Are you accusing those council fathers who voted against the declaration that they believed that every kind of religion has the freedom to propagate itself?

I don’t believe those council fathers actually believed that.

It is obviously they saw how those texts would be misinterpreted, and railed against that.

I give those council fathers the benefit of the doubt and then some - I actually see them as prophetic*.

Lefebre, and the other Cardinal who voted AGAINST this saw how it would be misinterpreted (and misinterpreted to mean that error has a right to propagate itself)

They were prophetic.

I’m saying good things about these guys and I’m STILL given a hard time!

 

[lentang2]

This is false. Both the presupposition that the council erred and that one may reject an ecumenical council.

If the SSPX-- or anyone-- rejects a ecumenical council duly ratified by the pope then we have reason to criticize them. It is shocking that any allegedly traditional Catholic would dare to suggest such a thing.

Unfortunately, this is only a twisting of words. Whether pastoral or dogmatic, it was an ecumenical council. We are bound to believe the teachings of ecumenical councils. What authority do we have to pick and choose what we like from ecumenical councils and what we don’t like? Instead, let us profess the faith, “whole and undefiled.”

-Rob

Well said, Rob!

 

[Just_Lurking]

The* Rhine flows into the Tiber *is considered the most accurate and unbiased book about Vatican II.

In my opinion, the multi-volume History of Vatican II edited by Giuseppe Alberigo and Joseph A. Komonchak is superior both in accuracy and in having less bias, as well as being much more thorough and complete.

 

[Auntie_M]

May I ask a question on the Crusades…

I have read different views about this era. Some say the Crusaders “forced” the Catholic faith on everyone and killed those who would not accept it.

But, I have also read a view that the Catholics were persecuted for defending their “right” to practice their faith?

Was God pleased with all this killing? Wouldn’t it have been more pleasing to God if no one killed anyone for “their belief” (have religious freedom) and let HIM “open their eyes” to the truth.
He does have the power to do that.

Which is more accurate? Did we, as Catholics have the right to kill those who would not accept our faith or did others have the right to kill us for not accepting theirs?

I may be wrong, but isn’t that how “religious freedom” came about.
Back then, a Catholic was not accepted. Jesus was not accepted for his “views” which were different from the “Other religions” of that time, so he was killed also.

HUMMMMMM d e e p.

If it were not for “religious freedom” where would WE, as Catholics, be now?

There are quite alot of ways of "interpreting “religious freedom”.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Did we, as Catholics have the right to kill those who would not accept our faith or did others have the right to kill us for not accepting theirs?

I believe the theory is that Catholics have the right to kill others for not accepting the Catholic faith, because the Catholic faith is right, whereas others do not have the right to kill Catholics for not accepting their faith, because their faith is wrong.

 

[SFD]

Unfortunately, this is only a twisting of words. Whether pastoral or dogmatic, it was an ecumenical council.

The “twisting of words” occurred at the Council. The reason that some Fathers voted for the schemas was precisely because they were only “pastoral” and not “dogmatic”.

SFD

 

[SFD]

In my opinion, the multi-volume History of Vatican II edited by Giuseppe Alberigo and Joseph A. Komonchak is superior both in accuracy and in having less bias, as well as being much more thorough and complete.

Did you know that Wiltgen was a liberal?

SFD

 

[Just_Lurking]

Did you know that Wiltgen was a liberal?

I have a feeling that “was” is definitely used in the past tense here. In any event, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber presents an extremely one-sided, anti-liberal view of Vatican II.

 

[SFD]

I have a feeling that “was” is definitely used in the past tense here. In any event, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber presents an extremely one-sided, anti-liberal view of Vatican II.

So you really don’t know anything about Fr. Wiltgen. He was a liberal when he wrote the book…and thereafter as far as I know.

SFD

 

[alih]

from a talk by a “leo darroch” deputy chairman of the latin mass society of england and wales on may 3, 1995 ‘what vatican ii really said.’ (10) “fr. ralph wiltgen, of the divine world missionaries, was head ofthe independent and multilingual coucil news service. after the council he wrote a book called ‘the rhine flows into the tiber.’ it describes in very factual detail how this ruthless group of clerics (northern europe particularily germany and holland) from the rhine countries of northern europe gained control of the council and moulded it to their own ends and how they succeeded.”
i would assume a web search would uncover the raw data for detailed study and comprehension. have a good year. (alih)

 

[catholic101]

But we have not yet reached the end of their philosophizing, or, to speak more accurately, of their folly. Modernists find in this sense not only faith, but in and with faith, as they understand it, they affirm that there is also to be found revelation. For, indeed, what more is needed to constitute a revelation? Is not that religious sense which is perceptible in the conscience, revelation, or at least the beginning of revelation? Nay, is it not God Himself manifesting Himself, indistinctly, it is true, in this same religious sense, to the soul? And they add: Since God is both the object and the cause of faith, this revelation is at the same time of God and from God, that is to say, God is both the Revealer and the Revealed.
From this, Venerable Brethren, springs that most absurd tenet of the Modernists, that every religion, according to the different aspect under which it is viewed, must be considered as both natural and supernatural. It is thus that they make consciousness and revelation synonymous. From this they derive the law laid down as the universal standard, according to which religious consciousness is to be put on an equal footing with revelation, and that to it all must submit, even the supreme authority of the Church, whether in the capacity of teacher, or in that of legislator in the province of sacred liturgy or discipline.

1. In all this process, from which, according to the Modernists, faith and revelation spring, one point is to be particularly noted, for it is of capital importance on account of the historicocritical corollaries which they deduce from it. The unknowable they speak of does not present itself to faith as something solitary and isolated; hut on the contrary in close conjunction with some phenomenon, which, though it belongs to the realms of science or history, yet to some extent exceeds their limits. Such a phenomenon may be a fact of nature containing within itself something mysterious; or it may be a man, whose character, actions, and words cannot, apparently, be reconciled with the ordinary laws of history. Then faith, attracted by the unknowable which is united with the phenomenon, seizes upon the whole phenomenon, and, as it were, permeates it with its own life. From this two things follow. The first is a sort of transfiguration of the phenomenon, by its elevation above its own true conditions, an elevation by which it becomes more adapted to clothe itself with the form of the divine character which faith will bestow upon it. The second consequence is a certain disfiguration – so it may be called – of the same phenomenon, arising from the fact that faith attributes to it, when stripped of the circumstances of place and time, characteristics which it does not really possess; and this takes place especially in the case of the phenomena of the past, and the more fully in the measure of their antiquity. From these two principles the Modernists deduce two laws, which, when united with a third which they have already derived from agnosticism, constitute the foundation of historic criticism. An example may be sought in the Person of Christ. In the Person of Christ, they say, science and history encounter nothing that is not human. Therefore, in virtue of the first canon deduced from agnosticism, whatever there is in His history suggestive of the divine must be rejected. Then, according to the second canon, the historical Person of Christ was transfigured by faith; therefore everything that raises it above historical conditions must be removed. Lastly, the third canon, which lays down that the Person of Christ has been disfigured by faith, requires that everything should be excluded, deeds and words and all else, that is not in strict keeping with His character, condition, and education, and with the place and time in which He lived. A method of reasoning which is passing strange, but in it we have the Modernist criticism.

Part of The Encyclical
“Pascendi Dominici Gregis”
Given by His Holiness Pope Saint Pius X
September 8, 1907

 

[lentang2]

Did you know that Wiltgen was a liberal?

SFD

My friend who is a Trad says this as to the reason why he will not listen to Catholic Answers podcasts: Karl Keating is a LIBERAL !!!"

 

[SFD]

My friend who is a Trad says this as to the reason why he will not listen to Catholic Answers podcasts: Karl Keating is a LIBERAL !!!"

I was merely pointing out his bias, if he had one. I don’t know that he shows any bias in his book. Your comment misses the point.

SFD

 

[alih]

has anyone ever thought of the possibility that the real aim of vat. ii was to get all the modernists and liberal catholics out in the open where they can be seen and properly dealt with??? verry interesting!!! :

 

[pnewton]

My friend who is a Trad says this as to the reason why he will not listen to Catholic Answers podcasts: Karl Keating is a LIBERAL !!!"

That’s got to be the funniest thing I have read here in a while!

 

[Auntie_M]

from a talk by a “leo darroch” deputy chairman of the latin mass society of england and wales on may 3, 1995 ‘what vatican ii really said.’ (10) “fr. ralph wiltgen, of the divine world missionaries, was head ofthe independent and multilingual coucil news service. after the council he wrote a book called ‘the rhine flows into the tiber.’ it describes in very factual detail how this ruthless group of clerics (northern europe particularily germany and holland) from the rhine countries of northern europe gained control of the council and moulded it to their own ends and how they succeeded.”
i would assume a web search would uncover the raw data for detailed study and comprehension. have a good year. (alih)

It has always amazed me how people will believe a little known author rather than the well-known Pope. He may be a good man, I really don’t know. But I think I go with the Pope.

 

[maurin]

It has always amazed me how people will believe a little known author rather than the well-known Pope. He may be a good man, I really don’t know. But I think I go with the Pope.

Too bad, then, you are not the Bishop of my Diocese…maybe then we would have had a “generous” response to the Motu Proprio, instead of no response at all.

 

[SFD]

It has always amazed me how people will believe a little known author rather than the well-known Pope. He may be a good man, I really don’t know. But I think I go with the Pope.

Which pope wrote a historical account of Vatican II?

SFD