Time to eliminate all confusion about Vatican II

[DavidJoseph]

I am going say just a little bit in regards to this thread. When I first saw it I had the impulse to move on…but then I thought just perhaps my own past experience might help someone out there who may be confused by all this.
I am a little soul who once belonged to the Tridentine Rite Catholic Church aka. Fatima Crusaders a.k.a. Francis K. Schukardt’s Group. I was a “sister” for ten years in their convent. After much suffering and turmoil I left due to very serious scandal given by the leaders.
Today I count that a blessing. I have found peace, firm footing, and a Mother who has so comforted me that I wonder how I ever survived the angry rebellion that came so close to a repeat of the protestant reformation. I have been freed of schism that so terribly rends the Body of Christ. Another little soul brought me back to my Mother.
Dear Mother Angelica…She first made me very upset…now she makes my soul sing!
Trust…Peace…The Spirit of God is not in contentious arguments.
Either Christ is the Bridegroom and the Holy Spirit is leading His Church or we might as well all be atheist. I rest in the sure
bliss that the gates of Hell Will Not Prevail. I know that the Holy Father can not err in matters of Faith and Morals.
I too fought against accepting the Holy Councils of Vatican ii. I too fought against the Mass of P.Paul Vl.
But then I faced the TRUTH.
Christ is still at the helm.
This is still His Bride.
The Holy Spirit is still protecting the Roman Catholic Church.
I believe that the source of greatest suffering for our dear Saviour in the garden of olives was that His church…the church born from his ripped and bleeding side…would be so torn asunder…

Awesome, Mary!!! Welcome home!!!

 

[Mary_Henley]

In a world so threatened by an enemy so terrible…the children in the House of God sit and fight amongst themselves. We hurl lofty quotes and intellectual sayings as if in the saying and quoting the argument might be settled.
Grace is the only answer…prayer the only means to attain said grace.
let us remember what we have been told…
“They have ears to hear but will not hear”…
and again
"Having itching ears, they will heap to them selves teachers according to their own lusts and desires’…

 

[BobP123]

You’re wrong about Vatican II not being a doctrinal council. I addressed that in my original post, but you’re essentially sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "Lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala . . . " in the hope that by repeating yourself it will make your claims true.

I also never said that everything carries the same weight. But listen to what Pope Paul VI said to Archbishop Lefebvre in a letter dated Nov. 10, 1976:

“You cannot invoke the distinction between dogmatic and pastoral in order to accept certain texts of the Council and to refute others. Certainly, all that was said in the Council does not demand an assent of the same nature, only that which is affirmed as an object of faith or truth attached to the faith, by definitive acts, require an assent of faith. **But the rest is also a part of the solemn magisterium of the Church to which all faithful must make a confident reception and a sincere application” **(emphasis added).

Is this the same Pope who wrote Populorum Progressio before he wrote Humanae Vitae, said something about the “smoke of Satan” permeating the air after the council, and exiled Bugnini, the inventor of the Novus Ordo, to Iran for supposedly being a Freemason? Yet he allowed other Freemasons to hijack the council. Whose side was he on anyway?

 

[havemercy]

Threads like these make me wish Benedict XVI posted here. How depressing.

 

[AlexV]

No…I’m not wrong, David. Your fiat does not make things so. Your own quote from Paul disproves your point. ASSENT is NOT required. Your remark about my conscience is also extremely arrogant.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Is this the same Pope who wrote Populorum Progressio before he wrote Humanae Vitae, said something about the “smoke of Satan” permeating the air after the council, and exiled Bugnini, the inventor of the Novus Ordo, to Iran for supposedly being a Freemason? Yet he allowed other Freemasons to hijack the council. Whose side was he on anyway?

You aren’t answering on remotely the same level as David Joseph. You’re throwing out strawmen and red herrings to divert the argument from the truth. We don’t KNOW why Pope Paul VI, of happy memory, sent the Archbishop to Iran. We do KNOW that in October of 1976, that the Holy See strongly denied that a list of high-level churchmen were in any way associated with Freemasonry. The Archbishop’s name was among them. There is no evidence that Freemasons hijacked the council. Reading such posts is like running into a section of People Magazine that accidentally got cut and pasted into the Congressional Record.

 

[Michael_C]

exiled Bugnini, the inventor of the Novus Ordo, to Iran for supposedly being a Freemason? Yet he allowed other Freemasons to hijack the council. Whose side was he on anyway?

I’d like to you to show evidence for these claims. Not heresay, evidence. This is a strong accusation and I think you need to show proof Bugnini was mason.

 

[decn2b]

Alex V,

You seem pretty serious with every single response on this board.

I do have a few questions of your opinions.

1. Is chair of peter vacant? If Not, is the guy sitting on it from Bavaria?
2. Is the text of Vatican II damaging to the Church? If Not is the interpretation of the text damaging?

I usually can read people quite well…I am however, having a hard time getting a grip on what direction you come from.

Are you a sede?
SSPX?
Protestant?
SSPV?
Catholic in union with the current pope?

 

[DavidJoseph]

No…I’m not wrong, David. Your fiat does not make things so. Your own quote from Paul disproves your point. ASSENT is NOT required. Your remark about my conscience is also extremely arrogant.

More repeating yourself in the hope that it will make what you say correct.

Also, it’s interesting that you claim my quote from Paul disproves my point without bothering to illustrate HOW it allegedly does so.

 

[RobedWithLight]

Is this the same Pope who wrote Populorum Progressio before he wrote Humanae Vitae, said something about the “smoke of Satan” permeating the air after the council, and exiled Bugnini, the inventor of the Novus Ordo, to Iran for supposedly being a Freemason? Yet he allowed other Freemasons to hijack the council. Whose side was he on anyway?

Those are serious allegations. What we need are hard evidences, not selective nor filtered quotes from second-hand or third-hand sources. Can you provide us facts to back up your insinuations?

 

[AlexV]

Every statement of Vatican II does NOT require the assent of all faithful Catholics.

As for repeating ourselves, read any number of threads on these fora. Ultimately most come down to the hyper-obedience crowd who makes everything an issue of schism or lack thereof/communion or lack thereof, and those who have a truly Catholic understanding of obedience.

“Certainly, all that was said in the Council does not demand an assent of the same nature, only that which is affirmed as an object of faith or truth attached to the faith, by definitive acts, require an assent of faith…”

Your comments about conscience and reception of sacraments drip with arrogance and offense.

As for me, I am inscribed in the Apostolic Administration of St. John Vianney.

 

[srp643]

Every statement of Vatican II does NOT require the assent of all faithful Catholics.

As for repeating ourselves, read any number of threads on these fora. Ultimately most come down to the hyper-obedience crowd who makes everything an issue of schism or lack thereof/communion or lack thereof, and those who have a truly Catholic understanding of obedience.

“Certainly, all that was said in the Council does not demand an assent of the same nature, only that which is affirmed as an object of faith or truth attached to the faith, by definitive acts, require an assent of faith…”

Your comments about conscience and reception of sacraments drip with arrogance and offense.

As for me, I am inscribed in the Apostolic Administration of St. John Vianney.

AlexV - thanks for your postings, they are most enlightening. By the way, where can I get more info about the AA of St. John Vianney? Dominus tecum.

 

[decn2b]

Alex V lives in Brazil?

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

AlexV - thanks for your postings, they are most enlightening. By the way, where can I get more info about the AA of St. John Vianney? Dominus tecum.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Apostolic_Administration_of_Saint_John_Mary_Vianney

Their a great Traditional Order. Not nearly as big as the FSSP or ICRSS…but good nonetheless.

 

[DavidJoseph]

Every statement of Vatican II does NOT require the assent of all faithful Catholics.

As for repeating ourselves, read any number of threads on these fora. Ultimately most come down to the hyper-obedience crowd who makes everything an issue of schism or lack thereof/communion or lack thereof, and those who have a truly Catholic understanding of obedience.

“Certainly, all that was said in the Council does not demand an assent of the same nature, only that which is affirmed as an object of faith or truth attached to the faith, by definitive acts, require an assent of faith…”

Your comments about conscience and reception of sacraments drip with arrogance and offense.

As for me, I am inscribed in the Apostolic Administration of St. John Vianney.

And yet you conveniently fail to cite the latter half of the quote – **But the rest is also a part of the solemn magisterium of the Church to which all faithful must make a confident reception and a sincere application. **

So while they may not all require the same level or type of assent, they still require assent.

Regarding arrogance and offense, I wouldn’t be talking if I were you. It’s the height of arrogance and offense to dissent from clear teachings of an ecumenical council and then act like those who assent to them aren’t truly Catholic. And quit trying to shoot the messenger. You’re not really mad at me here; you’re mad at THE TRUTH. And if you’re part of the AA of St. John Vianney, then you need to act the part, which means you accept all ecumenical councils in their entirety INCLUDING Vatican II.

 

[BobP123]

If so, then with that attitude you’d be better off attending SSPX or independent Masses, where they have all of that which you love, namely, Tridentine Masses, with none of that which you hate, namely, loyalty to the Holy Father. It’s rather like liberal-minded “cafeteria Catholics” who, instead of becoming Protestant, insist on picking and choosing which teachings to accept and at the same time continue to call themselves Catholics and receive the sacraments, albeit objectively sacrilegiously.

Can you show exactly where the NO crowd shows total and complete submission to the Holy Father? Oh sure, they all buy tickets to watch him move his hands and go live but OBEY??? Give me a break.

 

[BobP123]

Those are serious allegations. What we need are hard evidences, not selective nor filtered quotes from second-hand or third-hand sources. Can you provide us facts to back up your insinuations?

Insinuations? I didn’t make them up. I didn’t write Progressio Popularum which gave hope to those Catholics who were into birth control pills. I didn’t use the words “smoke of Satan” to describe the bad fruit produced by the council. I didn’t just stand by and watch the Freemasons take over the control of the Church. Yes, it was well-documented that there were Freemasons in the Church. The websites are too numerous to fit on this board. But that probably wouldn’t satisfy you.

Why don’t you provide facts where all Church Cardinals are all goody too-shoes? You can’t, yet you believe it apparently.

A good book for you to read is “Saints and Sinners.” It even has pictures so you can follow it easier.

 

[AlexV]

Paul, quite interestingly, did NOT use the word ASSENT in the second part of his statement. “Assent” means to feel in accord with something…“Sentio, I feel.” You can’t lie about how you feel. If you feel Mary really wasn’t a virgin, you can’t plausibly confess the Catholic faith. If you feel Dignitatis Humanae was a blundering, ambiguous, poorly written, highly suspect document, you can still be Catholic. Dignitatis Humanae doesn’t require assent.

Reception? Means willingness to read it, basically. Latin RECIPIO: I take it back with me.

Application? Latin APPLICO: I apply it to something. Doesn’t mean “assent”. Quite different words. And words have meaning.

That’s why the protocols that were offered to various traditionalist groups do not mention anything except Lumen Gentium 25.

After all, every traditionalist group certainly ignores much in Sacrosanctum Concilium…oh wait, almost every Roman Rite church in the world ignores some or another prescription of it.

Oh, I forgot. Those are “just disciplines.”

Whatever.

And no, the Truth doesn’t make me angry (only dogs become “mad”).

I’m here to make sure curious onlookers don’t get a warped education in Catholic doctrine.

 

[decn2b]

could someone please explain to me the difference between a personal apostolic administration and a personal prelature?

DOes one have to live in Brazil to be a member of the AA o st. John Vianney? Or is it a personal Prelature?\

The more I think about it the more I realize that it couldn’t be a presonal prelature becuase of the way they celebrate Mass.

Are there any other Apostolic Administrations that are in union with Rome and Traditionalist?

 

[AlexV]

You can be inscribed in the Personal Apostolic Administration (since it is personal)…this does provide certain protections and rights, including having the 1962 liturgy a your proper liturgy.