Q's for Traditionalists who believe Vatican II and NO were wrong/invalid:

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lampo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Uxor said:
Don’t you get the sense that some don’t trust tradition? That some look at the past through the eyes of the present, where traditionalists look at the present through the eyes of of the past.
Click to expand...
No, Tradition is utterly trustworthy. So, for that matter, when it’s a matter of CHURCH tradtion, is traditon. But there is a difference between Tradition and tradition. The first is immutable, the second is not, though since that tradition belongs to the Church or was proposed or enacted by the Church, it enjoys a negative infallibility (it cannot lead the faithful into error, cannot express error). That doesn’t mean, however, that the discipline or tradition in question cannot change.

But in this and other threads, “Tradition” and “tradition” are often confused.
 
BobP123 said:
From Session 7 of Trent,
CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
Three questions, BobP123:
  1. Are canons disciplinary acts?
  2. Are popes bound by the disciplines promulgated by ecumenical councils or preceding popes?
  3. Is the Vicar of Christ included the term pastor of churches?
Maria
Click to expand...
 
No, I don’t think so. The sedevacantist argues that the pope who promulgated the Pauline Rite is invalid; thus the Pauline Rite is very probably invalid because it doesn’t follow the formula of consecration approved for the Roman Rite by former valid popes.
Click to expand...
Which is a circular way to the very same thing I said.
The pope is no pope is the remote reason. But your “because” is the proximate or immediate reason.
 
First of all, the most weighty theological opinion is that he can’t become a heretic. Second, if he can become a heretic according to the opposite theological opinion, he can’t pronounce error ex cathedra. Likewise, he can’t make disciplinary acts contrary to Divine Law.
Click to expand...
Well, let us view the Featherweights:

"There are not two sets of laws in the Church: one for the faithful, and another for the pope. There is only one law, and that states that those who are involved in acts such as described above are ipso facto (by the very fact) excommunicated and placed outside the Church. Canon Law does not distinguish between a Pope and a non-Pope in this area. Actions done in this way are public, they are manifest, and, as a great consensus of theologians, saints and those not yet raised to the altars, agree: a manifestly heretical Pope ceases to be Pope. He does it to himself by embracing and teaching error in a public manner. "
[St. Robert Bellarmine, SAINT & ecclesiastical Doctor, as found in his writing On The Roman Pontiff:]

“Now when he (the pope) is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See …” St. Francis de Sales, SAINT & ecclesiastical Doctor]

“There are two instances in which the cardinals may call a council without permission of the Pope. The first is when it is doubtful as to who the rightful Pope should be; and the second, when the Pope should notoriously lapse into heresy. In the first instance, we are guided by the principle ‘a doubtful pope is no pope’; in the second, the council will be called to declare what is already an established fact, for the manifestly heretical pope deprives himself of office without needing the decision of the Church.” --** St. Alphonsus Ligouri, **SAINT & ecclesiastical Doctor]

You are here encouraged to quote your Saints & ecclesiastical Doctors of the opposing opinions.**
 
Don’t you get the sense that some don’t trust tradition? That some look at the past through the eyes of the present, where traditionalists look at the present through the eyes of of the past.
Click to expand...
…and…
Click to expand...
No, Tradition is utterly trustworthy. So, for that matter, when it’s a matter of CHURCH tradtion, is traditon. But there is a difference between Tradition and tradition. The first is immutable, the second is not, though since that tradition belongs to the Church or was proposed or enacted by the Church, it enjoys a negative infallibility (it cannot lead the faithful into error, cannot express error). That doesn’t mean, however, that the discipline or tradition in question cannot change.
Click to expand...
But in this and other threads, “Tradition” and “tradition” are often confused.
Click to expand...
Of course, tradition is a living thing. We hold fast to the traditions we have learned…and we, as Catholics, learn these traditions from the preaching of the Church…which is our rule of faith. The proximate rule of faith, the preaching of the Church, is our rule.

If you are going to say the preaching of the Church is no longer trustworthy…and that is what is being said here…then the Church has failed. Of course, I don’t believe the Church has failed…that would be heretical. I believe these scoundrels are not the Church.

The idea that these bishops are unaware of the heresy being taught in their catechism classes, and that this crass and criminal ignorance excuses them, amounts to saying either there is no real problem…or the Church leads souls to perdition. I deny both and look for an explanation that does not wreck the indefectibily of the Church or deny the facts we all see around us.

Gorman
 
JKirkLVNV said:
No, Tradition is utterly trustworthy. So, for that matter, when it’s a matter of CHURCH tradtion, is traditon. But there is a difference between Tradition and tradition. The first is immutable, the second is not, though since that tradition belongs to the Church or was proposed or enacted by the Church, it enjoys a negative infallibility (it cannot lead the faithful into error, cannot express error). That doesn’t mean, however, that the discipline or tradition in question cannot change.

.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the current discipline of the Church is better than the prior discipline?
 
TNT said:
You are here encouraged to quote your Saints & ecclesiastical Doctors of the opposing opinions.
Click to expand...
First of all, I don’t have any quotes. All I know is that a sedevacantist website I’ve been to (and am forbidden to link to here by the forum rules) says that Cajetan, Suarez, John of St Thomas, Journet, and Bouix held that a heretical pope would still have to be recognized as pope by the Church.

Secondly, I’d like to say that I personally hold the opinion outlined by the theologians you quoted. I was just calling to your attention that there actually are theologians that hold the opposite opinion.

Maria
 
Uxor said:
Are you saying that the current discipline of the Church is better than the prior discipline?
Click to expand...
No, not at all. I’m saying that both are equally protected from leading the faithful into impiety, that both enjoy that negative infallibility that any discipline of the Church enjoys. Further, to maintain continuity between posts, I’m also saying that what BobP123 asserts Trent to have said is not remotely what Trent said.
 
bear06 said:
Kirk offered me the job awhile ago but I turned it down. But seriously, Kirk, do you want to second my suggestion to read the CE entry? Here it is again:
newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm

BTW. everything that Kirk said is found in this article.
Click to expand...
Yeah, well, I thought the pay package was fair, but you copped an attitude about the dental benefits.

Yes, I strongly suggest the link that bear provided. Also, our fellow Catholic and poster here at CA, Itsjustdave, has a blog and in his archives there is an excellent treatment of this subject.
 
Yeah, well, I thought the pay package was fair, but you copped an attitude about the dental benefits.
Click to expand...
Yeah, well, with six kids I’ve got to have a good dental plan. When ortho’s included, let me know!😉
 
Lampo said:
  1. Vatican Council I dogmatically defined the teaching on the infallibility of the Pope. Do you believe the teaching of Vatican Council I?
Click to expand...
Yes, I do.
  1. Therefore, based on the teaching of Vatican Council I, who has final authority to decide on matters of faith and morals?
Click to expand...
The Supreme Pontiff.
  1. Are issues relating to the Mass issues of faith?
Click to expand...
Yes, but the ‘matters of faith’ referred to in Vatican I does not make the Pope the final authority in every single matter of faith (he is only the final authority in matters of Doctrinal faith and belief). For me, praying the Rosary is a matter of faith…that does not make John Paul’s Luminous Mysteries infallible. But I will address this in more detail below so allow me to respond to the best of my ability.

You make a very interesting point, and before I answer it I’m going to take a moment to clarify how I interpreted your post. If I misunderstood you, feel free to correct me.

You have drawn an obvious conclusion from your series of questions. The first question being “1) Vatican Council I dogmatically defined the teaching on the infallibility of the Pope. Do you believe the teaching of Vatican Council I?”

Almost all Catholics today will naturally confirm that they do believe in the dogmatic teachings of the First Vatican Council. In your next question you go on to ask if the reader believes that the Pope is then (according to VI) the final authority on matters of faith and morals. The answer is again, for most Catholics, ‘yes’. Your post continues where you ask the reader if he or she believes that the Mass is a subject of faith? The obvious answer is ‘yes’ it is in the strict sense a matter of faith because it is connected with what we believe as Catholics.

“Why, then, should I listen to what these people say over what the Pope says regarding the Mass?”

Well I have to tell you from the outside you seem like you’ve found a very full proof argument. I can’t think of any way to disprove your argument, so I’m going to use that very same bulletproof questionnaire against you….

So here are my questions:
  1. Is the Mass a matter of faith?
  2. Do you believe that the Catholic Faith is Truth and unchangeable?
  3. You do realize that the Mass is not an unchangeable tradition of the Church?
So we are forced to make two conclusions. We must accept one or accept the other. I will continue with the conclusions in my next post.
 
Continued from my above Post…
Click to expand...
Conclusion A:

The Pope, because of the teaching of Vatican I, is the infallible authority on the subject of the Liturgy. Therefore, since Paul VI changed the Old Mass and created the Pauline Missal, he must have been changing doctrine and therefore has thrown the teachings of Vatican I in question.

(We, as Catholics, cannot choose conclusion A for obvious reasons.)

Conclusion B:

The Mass is NOT a matter of doctrinal faith or morals and therefore the Pope is NOT the final authority on the Mass. Hence, if the Pope is NOT the final authority on the Mass he does not have infallible protection concerning it, and the promulgation of the New Mass could very well be a mistake for the Church since it does not enjoy Divine Protection.

(Please be welcome to create a “Conclusion C” if there is a third option between these two choices. However, amongst the two I have provided, Conclusion B is the only possible choice for the faithful Roman Catholic)

Now if we choose Conclusion B…then your argument does not work because the Pope is no longer the supreme authority of the liturgy and we must then turn to reason and tradition to understand the situation of the New Mass and not take Paul VI’s personal opinions regarding the liturgy as the ‘work of the Holy Spirit’.

So to answer your last few questions:
  1. Do the guys/gals who claim Vatican II and the Novus Ordo are wrong have more authority than the Pope to decide on matters of faith and morals?
Click to expand...
No, the Pope has more authority since he is a Bishop of the Catholic Church, and perhaps more authority concerning the liturgy than his other fellow Bishops since he is the Vicar of Christ. However, the Pope does not enjoy infallible protection in his opinion of the liturgy, and it is entirely possible that there is a Cardinal out there today who knows more about the liturgy than Our Beloved Pope Benedict. (Just an example, since I myself find Pope Benedict as one of the greatest liturgists of our time)

For a better example, I would think that Pope Benedict (the then-Cardinal Ratzinger) has a bit of a wider scope on liturgical matters than Pope John Paul II. Now that is not to say that Benedict is better than John Paul II, its just pointing out that being Pope does not automatically make you the final authority on the liturgy. Since we above decided that the liturgy is not a subject of infallible truth and doctrine.
  1. Why, then, should I listen to what these people say over what the Pope says regarding the Mass?
Click to expand...
You should never listen to what anyone says over anyone else. Listen to the Church as a whole, not isolated individuals. Listen to the Old Testament descriptions of liturgy and sacrifice, listen to the writings of the many saints, listen to the tradition of the Church….moreover….open your catechism and read what it says about the Mass. Than ask yourself…why did we need a new Mass?

In my opinion the Old Mass was doing fine, no…it was doing great.

Don’t expect the Pope to receive tomorrow the final say on how the liturgy should be celebrated, and don’t assume that because of his position Paul VI is somehow preserved from error in his choice to promulgate a New Mass.

I look forward to your response.
 
gorman64 said:
Of course, tradition is a living thing. We hold fast to the traditions we have learned…and we, as Catholics, learn these traditions from the preaching of the Church…which is our rule of faith. The proximate rule of faith, the preaching of the Church, is our rule.

If you are going to say the preaching of the Church is no longer trustworthy…and that is what is being said here…then the Church has failed.
Click to expand...
The preaching of the Church is infallible to the extent that it is of the whole episcopal body. The errors of individual members of the episcopal body do not render the preaching of the Church untrustworthy.
gorman64 said:
The idea that these bishops are unaware of the heresy being taught in their catechism classes, and that this crass and criminal ignorance excuses them, amounts to saying either there is no real problem…or the Church leads souls to perdition.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, the only souls such bishops lead to perdition are their own. If the simple faithful are taught material heresy and sincerely believe it to be Church teaching, no sin of heresy is imputed to them. So how are they led to perdition?

Maria
 
Ad_Orientum said:
Conclusion A:

we must then turn to reason and tradition to understand the situation of the New Mass and not take Paul VI’s personal opinions regarding the liturgy as the ‘work of the Holy Spirit’.

.
Click to expand...
Exactly!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top