S
SemperFidelis
Guest
Maybe the Jesuits of today will get with the program sometime, eh?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
mgrfin
Guest
I leave it up to the Jesuits on the Board to respond to that.Maybe the Jesuits of today will get with the program sometime, eh?
peace
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
I’m pretty sure any orthodox Jesuit already knows the state of crisis that his order is in today. All the heterodox ones, live in “fairy-tale” land. Nothing else really needs to be responded to.I leave it up to the Jesuits on the Board to respond to that.
peace
M
mgrfin
Guest
“Orthodox Jesuit” - do you mean ultra right wing conservative?’I’m pretty sure any orthodox Jesuit already knows the state of crisis that his order is in today. All the heterodox ones, live in “fairy-tale” land. Nothing else really needs to be responded to.
“Heterodox” - you mean ';dissident"
I’m not a Jesuit, and I’m not up on who is ‘orthdox’, ‘heterodox’, ‘dissent’, etc.
Speak common english, not in code.
peace
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
It shouldn’t be code for a theologian…“Orthodox Jesuit” - do you mean ultra right wing conservative?’
“Heterodox” - you mean ';dissident"
I’m not a Jesuit, and I’m not up on who is ‘orthdox’, ‘heterodox’, ‘dissent’, etc.
Speak common english, not in code.
peace
M
mgrfin
Guest
How would you know?It shouldn’t be code for a theologian…
Who knows what feeneyites, Lefebreites, sedevacantists, etc., speak.
Who cares? The Vatican 2 Council was 40 years ago. Get over it!
This thread is loaded with a lot of unhappy Christians. Who else wants to join the chorus against the Roman Catholic Church?
Go ahead, enjoy, oh unhappy Christians.
peace
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
I must say, I don’t think I’ve ever come across someone on these boards who is so good at completely avoiding the point, and going off on a complete tangent. The above is just another prime example.How would you know?
Who knows what feeneyites, Lefebreites, sedevacantists, etc., speak.
Who cares? The Vatican 2 Council was 40 years ago. Get over it!
This thread is loaded with a lot of unhappy Christians. Who else wants to join the chorus against the Roman Catholic Church?
Go ahead, enjoy, oh unhappy Christians.
peace
M
mgrfin
Guest
You weren’t making any point. You were making a snide comment.I must say, I don’t think I’ve ever come across someone on these boards who is so good at completely avoiding the point, and going off on a complete tangent. The above is just another prime example.
I’m just turning the other cheek.
peace
T
TMC
Guest
OK. You say that the real Church, the mystical and spirtual Body of Christ on earth cannot err. But that becomes meaningless when divorced from the physical temporal Church made up of the Churchmen and the faithful, doesn’t it? At a minimum the statement that doctrines declared by the majorities of Ecumenical Councils (and presumably doctrines from the Pope as well) do not have anything to do with anything would deny the concept of infallibility. If only the mystical, and unobservable, unverifiable, Chuch is infallible, then there is no infallibilty.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.
Theologians adding to definitions and finesseing language in order to blunt the truth is the greatest threat we face today.
John XXIII said that men when presented with the truth would submit to it. He didn’t anticipate the camouflaging of that truth with the ambiguous phrases of Vatican II.
The implication of thisis that if you disagree with the current Churchmen you can just declare that the real Church believes something different. I think you are saying the Churchmen only represent the real Church when they speak without error, and apparently that we know they don’t error when they agree with certain interpretations of the Faith. This seems no different than saying that the real Church is only whatever one believes it is.
Also, I don’t understand what you mean by the part I bolded. I hear people say that the VII documents are “ambiguous” (I don’t find them to be) and that they are being misconstrued. But they are being interpreted by the people that wrote them, arent’ they? Did Father Ratzinger, Bishop Wojtyla, and the other Churchmen with prominent roles in writing those documents forget what they meant by the time they became Cardinals and Popes? I think that the Vatican II documents on salvation are pretty clear, and that the Church has made their application pretty clear.
If you believe they are wrong, OK. But the documents mean what they say, and they represent the teaching of the Church.
M
mgrfin
Guest
Excellent post. These guys want to go back, and the Holy Spirit will not hear of it. I would say that the documents are very clear, and their application is very clear. I don’t get people asking me what I think something means, and why it was phrased in such a way. The documents mean what they say.OK. You say that the real Church, the mystical and spirtual Body of Christ on earth cannot err. But that becomes meaningless when divorced from the physical temporal Church made up of the Churchmen and the faithful, doesn’t it? At a minimum the statement that doctrines declared by the majorities of Ecumenical Councils (and presumably doctrines from the Pope as well) do not have anything to do with anything would deny the concept of infallibility. If only the mystical, and unobservable, unverifiable, Chuch is infallible, then there is no infallibilty.
The implication of thisis that if you disagree with the current Churchmen you can just declare that the real Church believes something different. I think you are saying the Churchmen only represent the real Church when they speak without error, and apparently that we know they don’t error when they agree with certain interpretations of the Faith. This seems no different than saying that the real Church is only whatever one believes it is.
Also, I don’t understand what you mean by the part I bolded. I hear people say that the VII documents are “ambiguous” (I don’t find them to be) and that they are being misconstrued. But they are being interpreted by the people that wrote them, arent’ they? Did Father Ratzinger, Bishop Wojtyla, and the other Churchmen with prominent roles in writing those documents forget what they meant by the time they became Cardinals and Popes? I think that the Vatican II documents on salvation are pretty clear, and that the Church has made their application pretty clear.
If you believe they are wrong, OK. But the documents mean what they say, and they represent the teaching of the Church.
peace
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
I don’t expect you to respond directly to any remark, as you haven’t done so on this thread yet.What, you want me to respond directly to some snide remark?
But it clearly wasn’t important enough twenty pages ago when you decided to take this once wonderful discussion between SFD and GerardP on Feeneyism and throw it completely off-track. At this point though, maybe everyone should just stop responding to you, as you have made 130 posts and haven’t once actually responded with anything of any weight or substance. In fact all 130 posts sound about the same and look just like the above.I’m watching a hockey game, which is more important than anwering you belittling comments.
I’ve done no such thing. Proof?Attack me,
I’ve done no such thing. Proof?attack St. Ignatius,
I’ve done no such thing. Proof?attack Vatican 2,
How would you know? Orthodox and heterodox read like code words to you…You have little to say other than carping about things and people who don’t agree with you.
M
mgrfin
Guest
The wonderful discussion to refer to was a long argument about theological notes. Really deep, insightful. Stuff the guy was copying out of a dogmatic theology text book.I don’t expect you to respond directly to any remark, as you haven’t done so on this thread yet.
But it clearly wasn’t important enough twenty pages ago when you decided to take this once wonderful discussion between SFD and GerardP on Feeneyism and throw it completely off-track. At this point though, maybe everyone should just stop responding to you, as you have made 130 posts and haven’t once actually responded with anything of any weight or substance. In fact all 130 posts sound about the same and look just like the above.
I’ve done no such thing. Proof?
I’ve done no such thing. Proof?
I’ve done no such thing. Proof?
How would you know? Orthodox and heterodox read like code words to you…
And what were the notes about? Tell me.
And what have you added? You said as a theologian I should understand this ‘code’. Why should I bother to respond to such nonsense.
Proof? You want to waste time on this thread about proof? Grow up.
peace
W
Walking_Home
Guest
The wonderful discussion to refer to was a long argument about theological notes. Really deep, insightful. Stuff the guy was copying out of a dogmatic theology text book.
And what were the notes about? Tell me.
And what have you added? You said as a theologian I should understand this ‘code’. Why should I bother to respond to such nonsense.
Proof? You want to waste time on this thread about proof? Grow up.
peace
Well-- wasting peoples time seems to be your strong point.
M
mgrfin
Guest
All Councils are the same? Really? Shows how little you know of Church history.Wait…what’s this? We have a “best” council? I thought all councils are the same!
.
If you understand the history of Councils of the Church, you will understand the remark.
Vatican 2 is a great Council. It was held in our lifetime. We were fortunate to live while the Holy Spirit was at work overwhelmingly in our Church.
You think the documents of the Roman Catholic Church were heretical? Go ahead tell us what you think.
peace
S
SFD
Guest
TMC,OK. You say that the real Church, the mystical and spirtual Body of Christ on earth cannot err. But that becomes meaningless when divorced from the physical temporal Church made up of the Churchmen and the faithful, doesn’t it? At a minimum the statement that doctrines declared by the majorities of Ecumenical Councils (and presumably doctrines from the Pope as well) do not have anything to do with anything would deny the concept of infallibility. If only the mystical, and unobservable, unverifiable, Chuch is infallible, then there is no infallibilty.
The implication of thisis that if you disagree with the current Churchmen you can just declare that the real Church believes something different. I think you are saying the Churchmen only represent the real Church when they speak without error, and apparently that we know they don’t error when they agree with certain interpretations of the Faith. This seems no different than saying that the real Church is only whatever one believes it is.
Also, I don’t understand what you mean by the part I bolded. I hear people say that the VII documents are “ambiguous” (I don’t find them to be) and that they are being misconstrued. But they are being interpreted by the people that wrote them, arent’ they? Did Father Ratzinger, Bishop Wojtyla, and the other Churchmen with prominent roles in writing those documents forget what they meant by the time they became Cardinals and Popes? I think that the Vatican II documents on salvation are pretty clear, and that the Church has made their application pretty clear.
If you believe they are wrong, OK. But the documents mean what they say, and they represent the teaching of the Church.
Consider the following:
“The implication of thesis that if you disagree with the current Churchmen you can just declare that the real Church believes something different.”
It’s not that we disagree with these “churchmen”…it is that these “churchmen” contradict previous certain doctrines and in some cases, contradict de fide dogmas of the Church.
The Church is infallible in Her ordinary magisterium…in Her disciplines…this didn’t come from the Church…it came from those who voluntarily defected from Her.
Just like the Arian Bishops…they do not comprise the Church. They cannot be the Church and our Lord instructs us to avoid false teachers. It’s that simple. The crisis is without president…but then so was the Western Schism…at the time.
I believe this crisis is a test of Faith…and most of all…a test of our Charity. Of course, there will be the response that it is really a test of the the moral virtue of obedience…but remember that obedience is a moral virtue…it must have a proper object. Faith, Hope, and Charity are theological virtues…and as such, they are of a higher value.
SFD
S
stmaria
Guest
Errors on faith and morals? NO. Unless Religious Liberty falls under one of those. I can understand why the SSPX rejects *Religious Liberty *as presented at VII and why this is a stumbling block with the Church.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?
peace
I don’t know if you are aware but Cardinal Ottavani’s schema a on Religious Liberty was rejected and another one by Cardinal Bea and John Courtney Murray was accepted.
Murray said that *Religious Liberty *was a developement of doctrine so clearly he believed that what was stated was something new.
The SSPX believes that" it is based on false principles solemnly condemned by the sovereign pontiffs, for example, by Pius IX, who called this error "a delirium.“and " the presentation of the basic principles could be done more in relation to Christ-King as in the encyclical* Quas Primas*…The schema on religious liberty does not preach Christ, therefore it is false.”
I don’t have a good argument against that. Are they right? I am not knowledgeable enough to say for certain but I believe they make a good case.
All of the documents were influenced by various theologians. Many of the experts had previously been censored and yet they were there at VII.
There are many sources that verify this fact. Here is one.
Pope, Council and the World * by Time Magazine’s Robert Kaiser.
Pg 149 Cardinal Ottaviani, “ went to Pope John and expressed his concern over what he had been told was a* very active ferment of new theological ideas in Rome**. The Holy Office had its eye on men like Congar, Chenu, De Lubac and Rahner…Now he found Rahner in Rome, lecturing bishops, even writing critiques of his commission’s schemata.”
A couple of other theologians at Vatican II that had been censored prior to Vatican II were John Courtney Murray and Edward Schillebeeckx both hepled in writing some of the VII documents…
M
mgrfin
Guest
Are you saying that the Conciliar documents of Vatican 2 contradict ‘de fide’ dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church?TMC,
Consider the following:
“The implication of thesis that if you disagree with the current Churchmen you can just declare that the real Church believes something different.”
It’s not that we disagree with these “churchmen”…it is that these “churchmen” contradict previous certain doctrines and in some cases, contradict de fide dogmas of the Church.
The Church is infallible in Her ordinary magisterium…in Her disciplines…this didn’t come from the Church…it came from those who voluntarily defected from Her.
Just like the Arian Bishops…they do not comprise the Church. They cannot be the Church and our Lord instructs us to avoid false teachers. It’s that simple. The crisis is without president…but then so was the Western Schism…at the time.
I believe this crisis is a test of Faith…and most of all…a test of our Charity. Of course, there will be the response that it is really a test of the the moral virtue of obedience…but remember that obedience is a moral virtue…it must have a proper object. Faith, Hope, and Charity are theological virtues…and as such, they are of a higher value.
SFD
peace
T
TMC
Guest
OK, I understand that is the argument. But the Council and the current Church leadership have done a pretty good job of explaining the development of the faith and why what is taught today is not inconsistent with what has been taught through history. Was every jot and tittle that was written by the Church 500 years ago immutable and infallible, but the words written today are of no regard whatsoever? No one has ever said infallible teaching or preserving the deposit of faith means that nothing new can be said. You think that current teaching is incompatible with past teaching. I don’t think it is, and neither do literally thousands of bishops and theologians. If the Church starts erasing the Nicene Creed or denying the Resurrection that is one thing. Refining the Church’s understanding of the extent of Christ’s church on earth and admitting that we cannot understand or limit the power of Christ’s Sacrifice is not undoing anything. Its a return to a purer understanding of the faith, and a slight correction in a common misperception.TMC,
Consider the following:
“The implication of thesis that if you disagree with the current Churchmen you can just declare that the real Church believes something different.”
It’s not that we disagree with these “churchmen”…it is that these “churchmen” contradict previous certain doctrines and in some cases, contradict de fide dogmas of the Church.
The Church is infallible in Her ordinary magisterium…in Her disciplines…this didn’t come from the Church…it came from those who voluntarily defected from Her.
Just like the Arian Bishops…they do not comprise the Church. They cannot be the Church and our Lord instructs us to avoid false teachers. It’s that simple. The crisis is without president…but then so was the Western Schism…at the time.
I believe this crisis is a test of Faith…and most of all…a test of our Charity. Of course, there will be the response that it is really a test of the the moral virtue of obedience…but remember that obedience is a moral virtue…it must have a proper object. Faith, Hope, and Charity are theological virtues…and as such, they are of a higher value.
SFD
Also, what do you mean when you say “this” (presumably Church teaching on the extent and power of Christ’s Salvic Act) came from those the voluntarily left the Church, what do you mean? This was not imposed on the Church by the Protestants, is that what you are saying?
M
mgrfin
Guest
Let me say this. Cardinal Ottaviani was the Grand Inquisitor of the Holy Office. He was responsible for the censuring of Murray and Schillebeeckx. Schillebeeckx passed the inquisition, but Murray wasn’t so fortunate - he not being a European, and not knowing how to get around guys like Ottavani.Errors on faith and morals? NO. Unless Religious Liberty falls under one of those. I can understand why the SSPX rejects *Religious Liberty *as presented at VII and why this is a stumbling block with the Church.
I don’t know if you are aware but Cardinal Ottavani’s schema a on Religious Liberty was rejected and another one by Cardinal Bea and John Courtney Murray was accepted.
Murray said that *Religious Liberty *was a developement of doctrine so clearly he believed that what was stated was something new.
The SSPX believes that" it is based on false principles solemnly condemned by the sovereign pontiffs, for example, by Pius IX, who called this error "a delirium.“and " the presentation of the basic principles could be done more in relation to Christ-King as in the encyclical* Quas Primas*…The schema on religious liberty does not preach Christ, therefore it is false.”
I don’t have a good argument against that. Are they right? I am not knowledgeable enough to say for certain but I believe they make a good case.
All of the documents were influenced by various theologians. Many of the experts had previously been censored and yet they were there at VII.
There are many sources that verify this fact. Here is one.
Pope, Council and the World * by Time Magazine’s Robert Kaiser.
Pg 149 Cardinal Ottaviani, “ went to Pope John and expressed his concern over what he had been told was a* very active ferment of new theological ideas in Rome**. The Holy Office had its eye on men like Congar, Chenu, De Lubac and Rahner…Now he found Rahner in Rome, lecturing bishops, even writing critiques of his commission’s schemata.”
A couple of other theologians at Vatican II that had been censored prior to Vatican II were John Courtney Murray and Edward Schillebeeckx both hepled in writing some of the VII documents…
Papa John called this Council because of men like the Cardinal were right wing conservatives, reactionaries, were holding the Church back from its mission in the modern world.
Murray, Kung, Congar, duLubac, Rahner, Schillebeeckx - Ottaviani didn’t stand a change intellectually against the likes of them. He had the power structure, but Papa John would soon depose him of it. Radical conservatism would lose its place in the power structure.
The Holy Office would not stop the progress of the Council, or of the Church.
A large sketch of Papa John is in my study, and hangs in a favorite spot, a gift from one of my friends at the Council.
Papa John has been smiling down on me every day since the late 60’s. Lefebre continues to be a footnote in my Canon Law textbook, under Canon 751. (Heresy, Schism, Apostacy).
peace
G
GerardP
Guest
Hmm…for something that I don’t know about, how come you didn’t tell me anything new?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.
Yes. But it doesn’t free them from obeying the 10 commandments or the law of gravity.It is a special kind of vow for Jesuits.
OttavianiWho is this non-infallible bishop you are talking about?
It’s twisted understandings like yours that lead non-Catholics to believe that Jesuits are spies and assassins doing the Pope’s work.When a Jesuit’s Superior says ‘submit’, you submit, else, pack your bags.
You can keep believing your ‘infallible doctrine’ but you keep your mouth shut.
It’s not true. But even if it were, it would be wrong. Obedience is subordinate to Justice. That’s a fact. There is not dispute in it.For Jesuits, justice is subordinate to obedience.
You’re position is that the Pope is to be obeyed up to and including murder or anything under the sun.
Absolutely ridiculous.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.