J
JReducation
Guest
"Obedience unites us so closely to God that in a way transforms us into Him, so that we have no other will but His. If obedience is lacking, even prayer cannot be pleasing to God."
St. Thomas Aquinas
JR
- Status
St. Thomas Aquinas
JR
E
elts1956
Guest
Dearest PW. What do you mean the Holy Ghost was not convoked at Vatican II? What part of Christ’s words, “and nothing will prevail against it” do you not agree with? Please clarify. Thanks.
P
piouswoman
Guest
Dearest elt…since you missed an earlier post of mine on this, I provide it once again for you here:
Vatican II was a pastoral Council…
Because pastoral pronouncements are neither “true” nor “false”, and because they must be expressed in language that is vague and ambiguous, they cannot be the subject of infallibility. Thus it follows that the Holy Ghost simply cannot be solemnly invoked at a strictly pastoral Council, because the pastoral pronouncements could not be infallible anyway. All pastoral pronouncements, even those of Ecumenical Councils which are partly doctrinal and partly pastoral, form part of the Church’s day to day Ordinary Magisterium. Thus, what is taught in a pastoral pronouncement is not assured to be infallible.
It is a consequence of the Church’s infallibility that the doctrine contained in any new teaching must not contradict doctrine that had previously been taught “always and everywhere” in the Church. If a new “teaching” does contradict what was taught before, then the new teaching is obviously not infallible. This is confirmed by the infallible proclamation of Vatican Council I on July 18, 1870:
geocities.com/catholic_profide/renew2.html
N
NicPais83
Guest
Right, but there is nothing in the Second Vatican Council that contradicts any of the previous Councils. I read through the SSPX web pages, and what I found was that the SSPX contradicts themselves on numerous occasions, however. As it is, the Second Vatican Council uses definitions and dogmas defined in previous Councils. To say that the Holy Spirit cannot be simply invoked is an error in itself, since the by definition an Ecumenical Council acts in union with the Pope under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
E
elts1956
Guest
Hello Dear. A bit off the subject, but this was posted by another member on a different forum, but I thought it might help enlighten you as to what is believed by several million Traditional Catholics and also those dang. Modernists.
Originally Posted by SJP FPRIVATE “TYPE=PICT;ALT=View Post”
.
Furthermore, the idea of reforming the liturgy in order to restore it to some former state has been rejected by the Church:
PIUS XII IN EXCERPTS FROM MEDIATOR DEI. BEFORE Vatican II.
…the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification…
…Clearly, no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, “BECAUSE IT PLEASES HIM TO HARK BACK TO THE OLD FORMULAS”. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation…In every measure taken, then, let proper contact with the ecclesiastical hierarchy be maintained…
MY JESUS, I TRUST IN YOU…
Now I am sure many abuses have taken place, or have been put forward by errant priests, bishops etc. and those do need to be exorcised from the liturgy. BUT that does not mean the changes that were intended aren’t valid. I think Pope Benedict XVII is on the right path to clarifying and correcting those things that did go wrong. I cannot personally say I have seen any abuse of liturgy take place at my parish church. I trust our Pastor.
Okay, I’m guilty. I put in the caps
P
piouswoman
Guest
Simply put, there are teachings from Vatican II that contradict **every single Council **that came before it. Ecumenical fraternity, religious liberty, collegial equality.
P
piouswoman
Guest
Hello, my dear fellow…here is what you need to know about Mediator Dei: seems you have it all wrong…Hello Dear. A bit off the subject, but this was posted by another member on a different forum, but I thought it might help enlighten you as to what is believed by several million Traditional Catholics and also those dang. Modernists.
Originally Posted by SJP FPRIVATE “TYPE=PICT;ALT=View Post”
.
Furthermore, the idea of reforming the liturgy in order to restore it to some former state has been rejected by the Church:
PIUS XII IN EXCERPTS FROM MEDIATOR DEI. BEFORE Vatican II.
…the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification…
…Clearly, no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, “BECAUSE IT PLEASES HIM TO HARK BACK TO THE OLD FORMULAS”. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation…In every measure taken, then, let proper contact with the ecclesiastical hierarchy be maintained…
MY JESUS, I TRUST IN YOU…
Now I am sure many abuses have taken place, or have been put forward by errant priests, bishops etc. and those do need to be exorcised from the liturgy. BUT that does not mean the changes that were intended aren’t valid. I think Pope Benedict XVII is on the right path to clarifying and correcting those things that did go wrong. I cannot personally say I have seen any abuse of liturgy take place at my parish church. I trust our Pastor.
Okay, I’m guilty. I put in the caps
sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2001_March/Mediator_Dei.htm
E
elts1956
Guest
And what to my beliefs would that prove?
L
LilyM
Guest
But according to you in post #162, Vatican 2 in fact didn’t actually teach anything, according to you it made no teaching (‘true or false’) statements but only ‘pastoral’ ones - according to you, being pastoral automatically meant it didn’t pronounce anything in terms of being true or false.
Therefore nothing in it can possibly have contradicted previous Council teachings, since those WERE necessarily expressed in terms of ‘true and false’.
You’re trying to have your cake and eat it too. You must choose - either you’re saying Vatican 2 taught authoritatively, but taught badly (which is to say that it was in error, and is a nearly if not actually heretical thing to say of a council of all the Bishops of the world teaching together), or you’re saying it taught nothing at all, in which case you’re not risking being out of communion but at the same time cannot say it actually taught anything, and cannot criticise it on grounds of alleged teachings.
E
elts1956
Guest
:clapping: :clapping: I love logic. When I can understand it. And this I understand. You are so right LilyM.But according to you Vatican 2 in fact didn’t actually teach anything, according to you it made no teaching statements but only ‘pastoral’ ones - according to you, being pastoral automatically meant it didn’t pronounce anything in black and white terms. Therefore nothing in it can possibly have contradicted previous Council teachings, since those WERE necessarily expressed in Black and White terms.
You’re trying to have your cake and eat it too. You must choose - either you’re saying Vatican 2 taught authoritatively, but taught badly (which is to say that it was in error, and is a nearly if not actually heretical thing to say of a council of all the Bishops of the world teaching together), or you’re saying it taught nothing at all, in which case you’re not risking being out of communion but at the same time cannot criticise anything it supposedly taught.
N
NicPais83
Guest
No, you have provided me with no proof of any such contradictions. You gave me an article a while back outlining such contradictions, but the article was contradictory in itself and was incoherent. Ecumenism is needed in order to work to re-unite Protestants and Orthodox with us under the unity of the Bishop of Rome. Because the Orthodox, as pointed out by Benedict XVI have valid Apostolic Succession, they are defective only in that they lack unity with the Bishop of Rome. Protestants are not true churches, and therefore it is our mission to bring them back to the faith so that they have access to all 7 Sacraments for their salvation.
Religious liberty is needed in places such as Communist Russia, Communist China, Cuba, Vietnam, and any other government where practicing the faith would be outlawed. That may not sound important in the United States, but you don’t have to go too far back in history to see where in the US and UK Catholics were outcasts.
In terms of collegiality, this was an example where the SSPX document you gave me contradicted itself most obviously (most of the time, it took only single lines to prove points, specifically in the previous points). Bishops, when united with the Pope, comprise the teaching authority of the Church. If they are not united with the Pope, then they do not speak for the Church. The example given were of Canadian Bishops speaking against the Church, not united with the Pope.
A contradiction is when one whole document says one thing, and another whole document says another. Single lines from text cannot validly be used in this manner, as many times the context of the document is important. The SSPX articles from their website all take only single lines, out of context, to prove their erroneous points.
These organizations, i.e. those that take it upon ithemselves to define Church teaching, are dangerous to the soul, in that they claim false unity with the Church, while at the same time giving the appearance of logic. The true danger here is separation from Rome. Satan attacks us slowly and non-obviously. The fact that the SSPX is unable to validly absolve from sins in Confession is especially dangerous, since the Sacrament of Penance seems to be the first Sacrament Satan attempts to deny us; with lax Priests who see it as unnecessary, and with Priests, however well they may mean, cannot confer the Sacrament validly. This is one of the most important Sacraments in my mind, since without it, I don’t feel I would have a shot at salvation.
N
NicPais83
Guest
Standing applause! This is EXACTLY where the SSPX is having difficulty! There are a lot of contradictions in their logic! But, the trap is that they are so convincing and their contradictions are so subtle, that as they can get you to have issue with the Magesterium, then they’ve won the battle!But according to you in post #162, Vatican 2 in fact didn’t actually teach anything, according to you it made no teaching (‘true or false’) statements but only ‘pastoral’ ones - according to you, being pastoral automatically meant it didn’t pronounce anything in terms of being true or false.
Therefore nothing in it can possibly have contradicted previous Council teachings, since those WERE necessarily expressed in terms of ‘true and false’.
You’re trying to have your cake and eat it too. You must choose - either you’re saying Vatican 2 taught authoritatively, but taught badly (which is to say that it was in error, and is a nearly if not actually heretical thing to say of a council of all the Bishops of the world teaching together), or you’re saying it taught nothing at all, in which case you’re not risking being out of communion but at the same time cannot say it actually taught anything, and cannot criticise it on grounds of alleged teachings.
P
piouswoman
Guest
Pardon, but post #162 were not MY words, they were from this link which was provided:But according to you in post #162, Vatican 2 in fact didn’t actually teach anything, according to you it made no teaching (‘true or false’) statements but only ‘pastoral’ ones - according to you, being pastoral automatically meant it didn’t pronounce anything in terms of being true or false.
Therefore nothing in it can possibly have contradicted previous Council teachings, since those WERE necessarily expressed in terms of ‘true and false’.
You’re trying to have your cake and eat it too. You must choose - either you’re saying Vatican 2 taught authoritatively, but taught badly (which is to say that it was in error, and is a nearly if not actually heretical thing to say of a council of all the Bishops of the world teaching together), or you’re saying it taught nothing at all, in which case you’re not risking being out of communion but at the same time cannot say it actually taught anything, and cannot criticise it on grounds of alleged teachings.
geocities.com/catholic_profide/renew2.html
It was right there at the bottom of the post…how did you miss it?
I think Archbishop LeFebvre sums it up best and in a nutshell:
“We would of had a splendid council by taking Pope Pius XII for our master on the subject. I do not think there is any problem of the modern world and of current affairs that he did not resolve, with all his knowledge, his theology and his holiness. He gave almost definitive solutions, having truly seen things in the light of faith.
But things could not be seen so when they refused to make it a dogmatic council. Vatican II was a pastoral Council; John XXIII said so, Paul VI repeated it. During the course of the sittings we several times wanted to define a concept; but were told: “We are not here to define dogma and philosophy; we are here for pastoral purposes.” What is liberty? What is human dignity? What is collegiality? We are reduced to analyzing the statements indefinitely in order to know what they mean, and we only come up with approximations because the terms are ambiguous. And this was not through negligence or by chance. Fr. Schillebeeckx admitted it: “We have used ambiguous terms during the Council and we know how we shall interpret them afterwards.” Those people knew what they were doing. All the other Councils that have been held during the course of the centuries were dogmatic. All have combatted errors. Now God knows what errors there are to be combatted in our times! A dogmatic council would have filled a great need…”
How can I have my cake and eat it too? That’s easy, I just hold fast to Tradition and avoid the traps and pitfalls.
L
LilyM
Guest
You quoted it because you believe it (or are you saying you DIDN’T believe what you were posting?) therefore my criticism holds valid. I’m not even going to go too far into the laziness of lengthy cut-and-pastes here, which are sheer intellectual diahrrea. Link to Msgr Lefebvre if you want but don’t just regurgitate his opinions, try coming up wth a few new thoughts of your own.
My point being, you’re trying to simultaneously argue two different views of the Council, on neither of which you can actually validly criticise it, try as you might.
You’re being intellectually dishonest - you clearly began with the belief that V2 wasn’t binding in any way, and have worked backwards from there, and are just desperately clutching at any intellectual straws that you thought might support your bias.
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
I’m confused. In what way is her position contradictory. It seems like her posts have always been fairly consistent.
Also, no judging piouswoman, please.
Some of us have traditional confessors, and they guide us in dealing with these issues.
That’s what people are forgetting. A lot of these arguments are shared by traditional priests. No one is obliged to listen to a layman’s argument as if were issued from the pulpit or in the confessional.
Also, no judging piouswoman, please.
Some of us have traditional confessors, and they guide us in dealing with these issues.
That’s what people are forgetting. A lot of these arguments are shared by traditional priests. No one is obliged to listen to a layman’s argument as if were issued from the pulpit or in the confessional.
P
piouswoman
Guest
Thank you, I appreciate your support.
J
JReducation
Guest
There are some things that have to be understood about Vatican II.
JR
- It was truly an Ecumenical Council. It was the intention of Bl. John XXIII that it be an ecumencial council.
- It’s intent was to study bring the Church’s understanding of her mission, her identity and her relationship with Christ into focus in a manner that is consistent with contemporary thought and man. It was not its intent to change any truths about the Church, but to revisit what has been believed as infallible doctrine for centuries.
- It was also the intention to address issues that were never addressed in the past, because they were not issues in the past. For example, ecumenism. In the past the Church was struggling with heresies that were assaulting her. Her priority was to address those heresies and defend the faith. In the modern world the Church has nothing new to say about these heresies. Everything that had to be said, was said in the past by previous popes and councils. Now the issue at hand is how do we reunite Christians? The other isssue at hand is how do we as Catholics look at people of other faiths? Do we look at them with contempt and mistrust or do we look at them as Christ sees them, as sons and daughters of the Father? This does not deny the heresies. But they were already addressed in the past. The point now is to bring those brothers and sisters back and to help Catholics look at those brothers and sisters with compassion, not hatred or anger. There is no holiness in hatred or anger.
- Another new issue that had to be addressed by Vatican II was relationship with non Christians. In the past, the Church had already passed pronouncements on the truth of the Catholic faith and the errors of non Christian faiths. There was no need to repeat this. However, we have lived through centuries of hatred, anger, wars and even cruelty toward each other. The Church wants to bring this to an end. Vatican II teaches Catholics that non Christians are also children of God and that God wants to save them. Vatican II also teaches Catholics that God’s desire to save non Christians is so intense that if we look closely we see that these people have some of the same believes that we do, but do not know how to use them or what to do with them. We should recognize those beliefs. Like St. Paul did in Greece with the Greeks’ belief in the unknown God we must help non Christians see that some of their beliefs are really revelations that come from Jesus Christ and that if they come to Christ they will discover the fullness of those revelations. But the Church also teaches Catholics that the way to do this is not as we did in the past, through condemnation and hatred. This did not work then and will not work now. The way to bring non Christians to look at the truths that God is trying to reveal to them is by engaging them in talk, common projects for humanity such as working for peace, and other works that bring people together. As people are more exposed to Catholicism in a positive experience, they will also be more open to listen to what Catholicism has to say.
- Equally important, Vatican II wanted to address the place of the laity in the Church. For many centuries the Church had maintained a very clerical attitude. It had become so bad that even in religious orders, those religious who are priests were considered to be superior to religious brothers or religious sisters. The laity was the lowest run on the ladder. THe Church wanted to clarify that in matters of government the clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) are the hierarchy. But in matters of ministry and service, all of God’s children have a calling within the Church and no ne is superior to the other.
- The Church also wanted to address religious life. Religious orders had lost contact with their founders. They had become very isolated and some had become very monastic. Orders of friars and monks had become orders of priests. Vatican II saw the need for each religious community to go back and be what their founders wanted them to be. Friars and monks are to be that, not to be orders of priests. Sisters were not to be nuns. They were to be women religious out in the streets serving God’s peopel. Nuns were not to be in the streets serving anyone, but in monasteries living a hidden life. This had to be corrected. Religious life had been derailed by many forces.
JR
E
elts1956
Guest
PFM, I would suggest you take what is posted by Piouswoman as being of dubious source. I am not bashing her here, but she is certainly misguided, or unguided as the case may be. Hers are personal interpretations gleaned from personal interpretations of members of SSPX who are dividing themselves from the Vatican and its teachings that came about after Vatican II. No Dogma nor Doctrines were changed “during”, or “after” Vatican II. Be sure to check it out before you believe what she says.
LylyM’s logic seems very, shall we say, Logical to me especially if you have been following PW’s posts for any length of time.
Peace.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
Which council condemned religious liberty?
P
piouswoman
Guest
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.
- Status