Youre the one with ditties. It was you who said: Bah, Bah, Bah.
Actually, contrary to the impression gained from the English meaning of the word, “speculative” in this context does not refer to “speculation” as though the matter was uncertain. Speculative theology is the Scholastic Theology (theology developed by applying reason to the data of revelation), as distinct from Positive Theology (which is the arrangement of proofs from Scripture and Tradition).
Does anyone else teach what Fr. Feeney did in this book? It seems filled with misconceptions and misstatements…it is really quite imprecise and simplistic in it’s approach. Unless you really want to believe only Fr. Feeney got it right…I don’t see how one could base his beliefs on what he wrote. Fr. Feeney was certainly fighting the liberals…some who were public heretics…but I think he was in over his head.
I don’t think the Churrch went astray. What do majorities in the Council have to do with anything?
That doesn’t affect the indefectibility of the Church. The Church can cruise along just fine for quite a long time with people in high places in error.
Most actions and rules and governance is by Churchmen. The Church as the Mystical Body of Christ without spot or wrinkle is only in the absolute binding and infallible teachings.
The only problem is how do you define “too out of whack?” Is that for your comfort level or someone else’s?
I’m not sure what you are asking here. Are you asking about those in the state of grace in Heaven, Purgatory and Here on Earth?
We are obviously having a problem with the fact that many on these sites are enthusiastic Catholics but have totally forgotten to take the responsibility of being a Catholic who discerns right from wrong, and will subordinate obedience to Justice.
I’ve got to keep making this point. The “Church” cannot do anything wrong. The Churchmen in various times and places turned the virtue of obedience upside down and set it against justice.
The problem is, the baby was thrown out with the bathwater. Educating the faithful is essential but the Churchmen have let the defenses of the Church drop. We have enemies of the faith within the Church, teaching, preaching and undermining the rock solid clarity of the Catholic faith for a murky Protestantized faith subordinated to modern “rational” thinking.
You have to be “in” in order to go “through.” If you’re not “in” you can’t get “through” to salvation.
That depends on what you bring to the documents. For example the phrase “means of salvation” misleads people into thinking people will be saved in their own denomination or non-Catholic church. “Means of salvation” can be primary or secondary or tertiary. Every grace of the Holy Ghost given outside the Church is a “means” to bring people into the Church. But it’s a secondary means to get to the primary means namely, the Catholic Church.
Quite the opposite I’m suggesting that people start thinking for themselves and not rely on unreliable Churchmen to tell them what the Church has already told them.
Why?
I was off by a few years. I said “early in the 20th century” instead of late in the 19th. I stand corrected on that.
Well Papa John claimed that it was an inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
Why is that so? What makes the fact that the Vicar of Christ, the Supreme Pontiff, the Patriarch of the West, called a council that defined nothing new and purposely chose to remain at a modest level, equal to the council that saved Western Civilization?
No. That’s not it.
Are you talking about the authentic Magisterium? Or the ordinary infallible Magisterium? I seem to remember someone of great import saying that the documents of Vatican II were not all equal.
Why? I never claimed that he said that. Show me a document where he talked about dogs going to Doggie Heaven.
The authentic Magisterium, not the infallible Magisterium.
Straw man attacks on your part. Talk about having a simplistic view of history.
I guess that’s always a good sign when the Holy Office is prevented from defending the faith.
Yes a chastisement for the members of the Church to bring them back to repentence.
First, you should know that “Bread of Life” is a series of sermons that were gathered so, naturally the language is simplified.
Fr. Feeney was an ‘old school’ Jesuit? Really?
mgrfin, Gerald brings up a great point about the way the faith is presented in the documents of VII. Would you comment on the following?
The Church is not condemning me for schism, heresy, or apostacy.
The documents have to be taken in context. The Conciliar bishops had the opportunity to change the language if they didn’t like it, or vote it down. What did they do? They approved it.
Yes.
Again, you seem to want to hide behind legalisms and distort the facts.
Wow. I’m so psyched out by your belittling comments. I’m crumbling before your onslaught.
Here’s another of your favorite tactics. You tell me what I do. Since you don’t have facts on your side, it seems tossing out an accusation is all you have left.
And one is supposed to assume that the controversy that Vatican II provoked is the same as Trent or Lateran IV? That’s quite a tautological argument.
Oh of course. Because you say so.
Wait…what’s this? We have a “best” council? I thought all councils are the same!
So? What’s wrong with demanding that the bishops and Pope start defining the boundaries that they didn’t define at Vatican II?
The Councils usually take a clear stand and say, “If you believe this, you are right. If you reject it, you’re out.”
Lots of politics behind the scenes. Lots of compromising, lots of half-loaves and lots of time bombs in the documents.
Why should the Roman Pontiff have to straighten it out? Aren’t the documents themselves clearly representing the “Springtime” of Vatican II? The one that JPII talked about and that Pope Benedict feels has not been implemented yet.
Sarcasm, Calumny, falsehoods, straw men, fallacious arguments, loaded language, bad history, bad philosophy.
Spoken like a true progressive.
You mean you’d have to misrepresent their statements.
With no context in knowing the Catholic faith? That’s why many Jewish leaders are upset with the rewrite of the prayer for conversion by Pope Benedict. They thought Vatican II stopped the need for conversion as if that were possible.
Maybe you should. Ignoring them won’t help you.
The ones that hold the Catholic faith. Not Hans Kung.
No. Gerard is that part of the Church Militant that won’t let you lie about archbishop LeFebvre unchallenged. The fact that you can’t get over it shows how “Militant” you are in your exercise of the faith.
You forgot to add yourself to that list.
Was the schedule on lunchtime guided by the Holy Ghost as well? It’s not just 'who says it" it’s “how they say it” that matters.
I know you like to keep things vague since the details work against you. But what exactly of Catholic teaching am I bound to accept in Vatican II that wasn’t already expressed by the ordinary Magisterium prior to the Council?
You apparently know little about the Jesuits. You haven’t read much of Ignatius Loyola. You don’t know of Jesuits who had their theology down pat, but when they were told to ‘shut up’, and obey the Holy Father, guess what they did. They obeyed.
Gee, Trent taught new doctrine? Is that what you are saying? Or that we didn’t need Vatican II because it was all said before somewhere else. That’s what you saying? What exactly are you saying? You don’t quite get it, do you?
Let me ask you. You have a good understanding of Theology. Were there doctrinal errors - errors in faith and/or morals - taught by Vatican 2?