No Pope

[Neil_Anthony]

Vatican II by its very teaching of it contrary to what has always been taught.

“Among all the documents of the Council, it was the schema on religious liberty which led to the most acrimonious discussions. This is easily explained by the influence of the liberals and the interest taken in this matter by the hereditary enemies of the Church. Now, twenty years later, we see that our fears were not exaggerated when the text was promulgated as a declaration comprising all the concepts opposed to tradition and to the teaching of recent popes. How true it is that all false or ambiguously expressed principles will inevitably reveal their implicit errors. Later in this chapter I shall show how the attacks on Catholic education by the Socialist government in France are the logical consequence of the new definition given to religious liberty by Vatican II.”

The words of Archbishop LeFebvre from “Open Letter to Confused Catholics” a major study on the crisis of Catholic beliefs and practice.

The Second Vatican Council was used by Modernists as their opportunity to first confuse the faithful and then change their Faith.

I know that Leo XIII taught against religious liberty, but did an ecumenical council ever teach against religious liberty? I’m asking because my understanding is that Leo XIII’s statements on religious liberty were not definitive.

 

[ethelzguy]

*“Among all the documents of the Council, it was the schema on religious liberty which led to the most acrimonious discussions. This is easily explained by the influence of the liberals and the interest taken in this matter by the hereditary enemies of the Church. Now, twenty years later, we see that our fears were not exaggerated when the text was promulgated as a declaration comprising all the concepts opposed to tradition and to the teaching of recent popes. How true it is that all false or ambiguously expressed principles will inevitably reveal their implicit errors. Later in this chapter I shall show how the attacks on Catholic education by the Socialist government in France are the logical consequence of the new definition given to religious liberty by Vatican II.”

The words of Archbishop LeFebvre from “Open Letter to Confused Catholics” a major study on the crisis of Catholic beliefs and practice.*

Am I the only one who would like to see more individual thought on these threads?

Cut-and-paste, cut-and-paste, cut-and-paste.

We’ve all see all of the usual quoted documents ad nauseum.

What about some personal thought?

 

[JReducation]

On the issue of relgious liberty I think there is some talking cross purposes here. Let’s take it in small pieces, really tiny peaces, since CAF doesn’t give much room for lengthy explanations. LOL

1. Archbishop Lefebvre: I read his book and his concern had some validity. The Church’s statement on religious liberty was abused by many. I would even add to the Archbishop’s work that it was not only in France, but even in the USA and all over the the developed nations of the world. People took the word conscience and ran with it, forgetting that the Church has always taught that a conscience must be well formed according to the mind of the Church. When the Church taught about religious liberty it never negated this last fact, the importance of conscience being well formed. It was addressing oppressive societies where religious liberty does not exist.
2. Pope Leo XII: The Holy Father condemned a system of religious liberty that said that anything that man believes must be accepted, because it’s man’s right to believe whatever he wants. The Pope was correct in his condemnation. This is what Pope Benedict called relativisim. Pope Leo XII made this statement because at the time in history people were adopting a worldview that anything could be believed as long as it did not do harm to others. It reminds me of that famous book I’m OK, You’re OK. Well no, both of us cannot be OK. One of us has to be right and the other mistaken.
3. Vatican II: The Council tried to speak to the world and to Catholics in particular. Because it was a pastoral council it’s primary obligation was to teach Catholics to uphold the rights of every human being to explore his faith and to reach God without the interruption or interference of those who would subjugate one’s search for God and meaning. The Council felt that it was the duty of Catholics in the secular sphere of society to ensure that every man and woman was allowed the freedom to search for God. Some people begin from within the Catholic Church and others begin from some other point of departure, be it Protestantism, paganism, Judaism, Islam, atheism or whatever I may have left out.

Nonetheless, the important part is that we as Catholics must make sure that the world guarrantees that every human being be free to search for God and to find him.

The Council never denied that the fullness of truth subsists within the Catholic Church. This was addressed in Lumen Gentium and Gaudium Et Spes, two other Council documents.

The document on Religious Liberty summed up the discussions that the bishops had on this one subject, man’s search for God and his right to do so without interference. In the subsequent documents that I named above, the discussion on where the fullness of God’s revelation is found would be discussed in depth. But it would have been impossible to include all of this in one summary statement without derailing the thread on religious liberty.

Just as we have threads in this forum and we try to stick to one subject, so each of the documents had a thread. This is wy they must all be read. To read one and not the other, does an injustice to the Council. To quote one without quoting the others also does an injustice.

To conclude: Archbishop Lefebvre, Pope Leo XII and the Council were concerned about the same thing. People should have a well formed conscience and there is not such thing as a free for all.

The Council simply stated that the formation of the conscience is a journey that every human being must be free to undertake without interference from the state, the Church or any other authoritative body. This does not mean that the Church cannot guide. But the individual must be open to the guidance. The guidance should not be aggressively imposed. That can only serve to set back the person on his journey.

A good example of this was the mistake that the Vatican made with Luther. Luther as on a journey of doubt vs faith. The Church sent an emissary to him who instead of guiding him and listening to him, challenged him and threatened him with eternal damnation. Well, Luther who was already suffering from scrupples and being a very proud man, stood his ground, even though there were errors where he stood. The emissary that was sent to help Luther was not the most helpful persn. He too was filled with spiritual pride. He wanted to win an argument instead of help a man who was struggling with faith. I believe his name was Avelard. He as a Domnican Friar.

This is what the Church tried to teach Catholics to avoid. We are not to become other Avelards. He are to become more like St. Francis and Mother Teresa who approach non believers with the Good News, but with a great deal of warmth and love as well. They converted some and not others, but they planted the seed and let the Holy Spirit do his thing.

JR

 

[catharina]

How can anyone imagine he/she will be convincing when their sources for argumentation are:

1. the words of the excommunicated M. Lefebvre;
2. endless quotes from and links to sspx?

This type of presentation defies reason and is insulting to the Faith.

 

[I_Believe]

I know that Leo XIII taught against religious liberty, but did an ecumenical council ever teach against religious liberty? I’m asking because my understanding is that Leo XIII’s statements on religious liberty were not definitive.

Why would they have to teach against it again ?

There is no Salvation outside the Catholic Church.

Long accepted teaching. Basic teaching. The Truth.

IMO, interfaith worship services, with a priest attending such, is contrary to this teaching. It sends the wrong impression. It embraces the goal of the Freemason’s Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita. To say that this new ecumenism is right is to concede the Freemasons are right.

Double standards enable division. Two mindsets are now present, and they can’t both be right .

Everyone who disagrees with piouswoman and those of like mind, say we must be logical. Fair enough.

We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshiped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.

Sound logical ?

 

[ethelzguy]

We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshiped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.

Sound logical ?

Out of context, yep…in context of the authority of the HMC, nope.

The HMC has the authority to change as she sees fit. Your above comment is a statement against the authority of the Church to enact her own changes.

We were right then, and we are right now. It’s called obedience.

But nice cut and paste…I’ve seen this quote before.

 

[PrayforMallory]

If they would just have emphasized tradition when things started to go haywire.

If once, just once, a priest would have said “There is no salvation outside the Church” during a homily. Homilies and education became so vague that people were ultimately left to themselves to figure things out. They adopted pluralism and who corrected them?

Who is bringing Vat II in line with Tradition, outside of Pope Benedict? Certainly not many parish priests. They want the “progress” to keep going, right up until the faith is so full of contradictions that a rational person is going to see it as fake and fruitless.

It’s better to take a hard stance, and have doctrinal integrity, than to waffle on the doctrine in order to further a very vague and ultimately self-defeating ecumenical spirit.

If you don’t go to hell by rejecting Catholicism, people are going to continue abandoning it and people are not going to convert.

We’re still a religion, not a social agenda/ “faith community.”

Just my thoughts.

 

[pnewton]

We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshiped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.

Sound logical ?

Not at all. There is nothing in the above that is anything like a syllogism. Implied in the that paragraph is that everyone is the same, all places are the same, all times are the same and all circumstance are the same. Mind you I am not referring to basic equality or immutable moral teaching, but that all things are exactly the same in all situations. Instead of logic, it is absurdity.

 

[PrayforMallory]

Not at all. There is nothing in the above that is anything like a syllogism. Implied in the that paragraph is that everyone is the same, all places are the same, all times are the same and all circumstance are the same. Mind you I am not referring to basic equality or immutable moral teaching, but that all things are exactly the same in all situations. Instead of logic, it is absurdity.

It’s the notion of “Modern Man” that is the absurdity, in my opinion. People assume this radical break has occurred in human nature, and I can’t accept that. The human person might have more knowledge, more control of his faculties and nature now, but sin and virtue, and his inherently flawed nature are still very real and applicable.

Mankind is “traditional” whether we believe it or not. It’s a false, 20th century perspective to uphold this idea of “Modern Man.”

 

[JReducation]

If they would just have emphasized tradition when things started to go haywire.

If once, just once, a priest would have said “There is no salvation outside the Church” during a homily. Homilies and education became so vague that people were ultimately left to themselves to figure things out. They adopted pluralism and who corrected them?

Who is bringing Vat II in line with Tradition, outside of Pope Benedict? Certainly not many parish priests. They want the “progress” to keep going, right up until the faith is so full of contradictions that a rational person is going to see it as fake and fruitless.

It’s better to take a hard stance, and have doctrinal integrity, than to waffle on the doctrine in order to further a very vague and ultimately self-defeating ecumenical spirit.

If you don’t go to hell by rejecting Catholicism, people are going to continue abandoning it and people are not going to convert.

We’re still a religion, not a social agenda/ “faith community.”

Just my thoughts.

The problem is that this is the language that many people would like to see the Church use, but even the popes do not want to use this language.

It does not mean that they do not believe it. It means that they do not feel it helps. Even Benedict XVI does not believe it helps. Observe his language.

He was just here in the USA, observe the gentleness and the piety with which he prayed in a synagogue and prayed with non Catholics and how he explained the problems between Catholicism and other Christian faiths.

Observe how he said, “It’s time to forget the past.”

He also said, “The problem between us is a problem of hermaneutics and we must enage in a dialogue of hermaneutics.” He’s going to the cause of the problem

To repeat what has been said, “No salvation outisde the Church” is the same thing that Avelard said to Luther and it didn’t work. Why would it work today?

It is a truth, but the words did not have any effect.

The Church in her infinite wisdom has decided to go closer and look at the cause of the problem and has come out realizing that there is a problem of hermaneutics. This problem has to be fixed to bring others into the Church.

How many lay people even understand hermaneutics or even know what the word means?

But Pope Benedict is not speaking to the man on the street. He’s speaking to Catholic and non Catholic scholars, because they form the leadership and they undestand the term hermaneutics. He’s giving them something to think about that they probably never considered.

This is a good beginning, start with the cause of the separation and work toward the unity.

We have to be patient and let scholars like Benedict and others do their job slowly and painstakingly.

JR

 

[elts1956]

If they would just have emphasized tradition when things started to go haywire.

If once, just once, a priest would have said “There is no salvation outside the Church” during a homily. Homilies and education became so vague that people were ultimately left to themselves to figure things out. They adopted pluralism and who corrected them?

Who is bringing Vat II in line with Tradition, outside of Pope Benedict? Certainly not many parish priests. They want the “progress” to keep going, right up until the faith is so full of contradictions that a rational person is going to see it as fake and fruitless.

It’s better to take a hard stance, and have doctrinal integrity, than to waffle on the doctrine in order to further a very vague and ultimately self-defeating ecumenical spirit.

If you don’t go to hell by rejecting Catholicism, people are going to continue abandoning it and people are not going to convert.

We’re still a religion, not a social agenda/ “faith community.”

Just my thoughts.

Hello Mallory. First of all Tradition with a capital T is the spelling used when discussing Dogma and Doctrine, while tradition, small t is used for those rules that can be changed. I too wish more clarification regarding the changes and the Spirit of Vatican II had been pushed into my head. But I have no one to blame but myself, because I didn’t look until now. Now I am looking and I see that no Dogma, no Doctrine, “NO Tradition” that is intrinsic to the structure and beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church was changed during Vatican II, nor afterward to the present.

Even if your, or my parish priest had tried to explain “no salvation outside the Catholic Church”, most people would not understand it as it was given by Pope Paul II in his explanation of the spirit of Ecumenism. Many do not see that he did not negate the statement, “no salvation…”, but that he expanded the meaning through looking at what The Church means ecumenically. If we forever posit the belief that everyone outside the Catholic Church is in “complete” deviation from the CC, how can ecumenism be attained? Christianity as given to us by Christ is a religion of love. The Catholic Chruch as the holder of all truths given by Christ has the obligation to bring everyone through her door in the best way possible. No one is truly converted by force, but through understanding and acceptance of human nature.

 

[JReducation]

Hello Mallory. First of all Tradition with a capital T is the spelling used when discussing Dogma and Doctrine, while tradition, small t is used for those rules that can be changed. I too wish more clarification regarding the changes and the Spirit of Vatican II had been pushed into my head. But I have no one to blame but myself, because I didn’t look until now. Now I am looking and I see that no Dogma, no Doctrine, “NO Tradition” that is intrinsic to the structure and beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church was changed during Vatican II, nor afterward to the present.

Even if your, or my parish priest had tried to explain “no salvation outside the Catholic Church”, most people would not understand it as it was given by Pope Paul II in his explanation of the spirit of Ecumenism. Many do not see that he did not negate the statement, “no salvation…”, but that he expanded the meaning through looking at what The Church means ecumenically. If we forever posit the belief that everyone outside the Catholic Church is in “complete” deviation from the CC, how can ecumenism be attained? Christianity as given to us by Christ is a religion of love. The Catholic Chruch as the holder of all truths given by Christ has the obligation to bring everyone through her door in the best way possible. No one is truly converted by force, but through understanding and acceptance of human nature.

The key word here is “force” check out Jn 6. No one was forced to accept the truth.

God will do what he will do, regardless of what is said or not said. That’s what Jn 6 helps us to see.

JR

 

[piouswoman]

It’s the notion of “Modern Man” that is the absurdity, in my opinion. People assume this radical break has occurred in human nature, and I can’t accept that. The human person might have more knowledge, more control of his faculties and nature now, but sin and virtue, and his inherently flawed nature are still very real and applicable.

Mankind is “traditional” whether we believe it or not. It’s a false, 20th century perspective to uphold this idea of “Modern Man.”

I agree. Modernism and all of its errors began with the French Revolution, Vatican II has been called “The French Revolution of the Catholic Church”. Modernism cannot be reconciled with Traditional Catholic Doctrine. One has only to look at the “fruits” of Vatican II to see the terrible evils it has wrought. “By their fruits you shall know them”. Modernism is a sin, liberality of mind stems from modernism, modernism has been condemned by past popes, yet modernism flourishes today as though it has “in some mysterious way” become the truths which the Church has always taught. It is not the truth, it embodies error, and it comes from modern minds, that have been soaked in modern philosophy which undermines Catholic Doctrine.

 

[ethelzguy]

modernism has been condemned by past popes, yet modernism flourishes today as though it has “in some mysterious way” become the truths which the Church has always taught.

And, have not countless threads pointed out that the “modernism” alluded to by past popes is not the same as the “modernism” that occurs today?

How many times do we have to go over this? Define “modernism” as the past popes put forth, as compared to what you are calling “modernism” this afternoon?..without cut and paste, or links of course.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

1. Pope Leo XII: The Holy Father condemned a system of religious liberty that said that anything that man believes must be accepted, because it’s man’s right to believe whatever he wants. The Pope was correct in his condemnation. This is what Pope Benedict called relativisim. Pope Leo XII made this statement because at the time in history people were adopting a worldview that anything could be believed as long as it did not do harm to others. It reminds me of that famous book I’m OK, You’re OK. Well no, both of us cannot be OK. One of us has to be right and the other mistaken.

Thank you.

In addition to this type of relativism, there was the issue of legal prosecution of non-Catholics. Whether someone could be arrested for being a heretic. Or whether non-catholics would have the same rights as Catholics. Isn’t that what “religious liberty” is all about? And didn’t the Church change its mind on that at Vatican II?