T
tobinatorstark
Guest
also read paragraphs 884-896 of the CCC pay close attention of 891
- Status
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
Paragraphs 2032 through 2043 are vital too. Oh wait here is an even more of an idea. Why don’t you read the Vatican II documents they will give you some insight in what Vatican II teaches. I would start with Lumen Gentium. Wonderful document
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
Indeed they do.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
Paragraphs 85-90 also a great perspective on the Magisterium. Stop me if you get too overloaded with a wealth of information
S
Shin
Guest
I will try to speak gently and hesitantly here. . .
I general, all matters that are not dogmatic, are open to criticism. Even discussing matters that are dogmatic, as part of the process of seeking genuine understanding, rather than motivated by denigration, a certain kind of prudent criticism can be made.
In all discussions the normal matters of prudence and care in regards to truth and accuracy apply, naturally. And greater reserve before criticism and care before criticism of authority – but nevertheless it sometimes in fact must be made.
Must be made, because when there is a moral problem, a moral danger, it is required to be made.
The Church often condemns dissent against dogmas, that is one thing. It does not condemn criticism of fallible pastoral decisions. Instead it requires believers to alert people to danger.
Matters that are novelties, matters that are pastoral – if they go against the constant tradition of the Church, if a particular Pope does something that way, even as part of a Council he uses to promote his views, a person can be morally required to criticize them, and a Pope, if he were in proper conscience, would thank the person for speaking to the problems.
While you seem to desire to defend this particular Council, in general, as a part of defending the Church, many others see particular aspects of it morally obligatory to criticize as part of defense of the Church. And frankly, this is very understandable if you study more than simply one Ecumenical Council – especially one that did not use definitive language.
What parts of a Council are fallible… are fallible… I don’t know what some people don’t understand about that. It can go wrong. Badly. Fail. Be destructive. I’m being kind.
The Church doesn’t work quite the way some seem to think it does.
To not to criticize failure, to not criticize that which needs it lest people be misguided… is itself a moral flaw.
This is licit. What is not licit is to make up new Church laws in an attempt to get what you want. That is not at true defense of the Church. That is not something the Popes approve of, or at least, the good moral ones. And we do have moral and immoral Popes, well guided Popes and prelates, and horribly misguided Popes and prelates who both do good and evil, in the use of their authority, in the Catholic Church.
That is the nature of it all.
In case you haven’t kept up with it, some of the people who worked on the documents of Vatican II, include such paragons of virtue as Archbishop Rembert Weakland. He spent most of his life guided by a different spirit than the Holy Spirit, and going to write documents for Vatican II didn’t give him any sudden infusions of sanctifying grace. There are other people of similar caliber there too. Once you start looking at the history. They had their hand in it too. And it caused problems.
I suggest you read the Fourth Lateran Council, and declare your full support for it, and cite its latter constitutions on this forum. Let’s see how well you do.
Criticism that is motivated by human wisdom is one thing, and does not please God. Criticism that is motivated by tradition, by Revelation, does please Him.
Vatican II is a complicated matter that can take a great deal of time before a person is capable of speaking about it with any real prudence and capacity. By all means, if you are new to the faith, feel free to speak little with any definitive judgement about it. That is the best course. But if you latter on, find clear problems, and the support of Tradition, previous Ecumenical Councils, Popes – Then speak. Speak carefully, but speak the truth.
When God wants you to speak, you must speak, when He wants you to be silent, be silent. There are moral laws that guide this. We must learn them with care.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
I will try to speak gently and hesitantly here. . .
I general, all matters that are not dogmatic, are open to criticism. Even discussing matters that are dogmatic, as part of the process of seeking genuine understanding, rather than motivated by denigration, a certain kind of prudent criticism can be made.
But Vatican II is dogmatic
In all discussions the normal matters of prudence and care in regards to truth and accuracy apply, naturally. And greater reserve before criticism and care before criticism of authority – but nevertheless it sometimes in fact must be made.
Must be made, because when there is a moral problem, a moral danger, it is required to be made.
The Church often condemns dissent against dogmas, that is one thing. It does not condemn criticism of fallible pastoral decisions. Instead it requires believers to alert people to danger.
Matters that are novelties, matters that are pastoral – if they go against the constant tradition of the Church, if a particular Pope does something that way, even as part of a Council he uses to promote his views, a person can be morally required to criticize them, and a Pope, if he were in proper conscience, would thank the person for speaking to the problems.
There is nothing in Vatican II that is contradictory to Church
While you seem to desire to defend this particular Council, in general, as a part of defending the Church, many others see particular aspects of it morally obligatory to criticize as part of defense of the Church. And frankly, this is very understandable if you study more than simply one Ecumenical Council – especially one that did not use definitive language.
What parts of a Council are fallible… are fallible… I don’t know what some people don’t understand about that. It can go wrong. Badly. Fail. Be destructive. I’m being kind.
The Church doesn’t work quite the way some seem to think it does.
To not to criticize failure, to not criticize that which needs it lest people be misguided… is itself a moral flaw.
This is licit. What is not licit is to make up new Church laws in an attempt to get what you want. That is not at true defense of the Church. That is not something the Popes approve of, or at least, the good moral ones. And we do have moral and immoral Popes, well guided Popes and prelates, and horribly misguided Popes and prelates who both do good and evil, in the use of their authority, in the Catholic Church.
I am not making new Church laws. We have wonderful popes and Popes John XXIII through Benedict XVI are valid Popes.
That is the nature of it all.
In case you haven’t kept up with it, some of the people who worked on the documents of Vatican II, include such paragons of virtue as Archbishop Rembert Weakland. He spent most of his life guided by a different spirit than the Holy Spirit, and going to write documents for Vatican II didn’t give him any sudden infusions of sanctifying grace. There are other people of similar caliber there too. Once you start looking at the history. They had their hand in it too. And it caused problems.
Please explain further. Are you saying Archbishop Rembert Weakland was a heretic??
I suggest you read the Fourth Lateran Council, and declare your full support for it, and cite its latter constitutions on this forum. Let’s see how well you do.
Criticism that is motivated by human wisdom is one thing, and does not please God. Criticism that is motivated by tradition, by Revelation, does please Him.
I will look at the documents of the Fourth Lateran Council
Vatican II is a complicated matter that can take a great deal of time before a person is capable of speaking about it with any real prudence and capacity. By all means, if you are new to the faith, feel free to speak little with any definitive judgement about it. That is the best course. But if you latter on, find clear problems, and the support of Tradition, previous Ecumenical Councils, Popes – Then speak. Speak carefully, but speak the truth.
I do speak truth. If I make errors I recant
When God wants you to speak, you must speak, when He wants you to be silent, be silent. There are moral laws that guide this. We must learn them with care.
S
Shin
Guest
Vatican Council II did not define dogmas using the proper scholastic language that declares them. Therefor, ever single statement of it, that is not a simple restatement of an already existant dogma is open to direct criticism.
I can tell you’re new to understanding how infallibility, Councils, and doctrine work. It’s good to want to leap to defense of the Church. It’s bad to do it the way you are doing, using falsehoods, without even understanding what you are speaking about.
And yes, what you said about it being illicit to criticize is false. I am glad you are ready to recant after looking into it. You have a lot of work to do.
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
Folks, I think we are straying quite a bit here and I strongly recommend we move this discussion to the proper thread. The OP asked us a question and I think in justice we should stick to answering him. Soon we will be discussing geography and art at the rate we are going!
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
I guess Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation isn’t dogmatic??? Even though Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium are listed as dogmatic constitutions???
S
Shin
Guest
Yes, we are straying and so I will let it close.
If any one wants to correct me, feel free, but I will let it close on my part. I’ll be glad for anyone who proves me wrong, mistaken on any factual matters, etc.
I submit all of what I have said to the judgement of the Church with submission.
In answer to the last part, why don’t you read it and take note what is defined as dogma and what is not.
A title is not a statement of definition, it is a title that describes some of what may be contained in the contents.
If any one wants to correct me, feel free, but I will let it close on my part. I’ll be glad for anyone who proves me wrong, mistaken on any factual matters, etc.
I submit all of what I have said to the judgement of the Church with submission.
In answer to the last part, why don’t you read it and take note what is defined as dogma and what is not.
A title is not a statement of definition, it is a title that describes some of what may be contained in the contents.
O
OraProNobisIHM
Guest
In the NICEST possible way…
are you thick? I think the phrase in British English is “are you daft?”
On FishEaters.com, the page linked to an Islamic site is under this page:
fisheaters.com/theveil.html
Veiling.
NEXT, there are a series of links given with the following subtitle:
Finding or Making Head Coverings
Next, UNDER “Finding or Making Head Coverings”, there is a phrase that says:
Places to buy headcoverings (links will open in new browser window):
Then, FE gives links. The links are as follows:
* Headcoverings by Devorah
* Immaculate Heart Mantillas classic lace mantillas, chapel veils, etc.
* Halo Works classic mantillas
* Vermont Country Store classic, “retro” solid-color square chiffon scarves
* Modest World various types of scarves
* Desert Boutique inexpensive, long scarves in many different colors
* Headcovers Unlimited scarves and hats
* Berets
- It’s helping women find veils. How is that a bad thing?
- They’re not linking for the purposes of “declar[ing] that Jesus was on par with Muhammad…”
- On ALL of the pages in FishEaters, that is the ONLY thing you can come up with?
O
OraProNobisIHM
Guest
That doesn’t answer my question. Show me where it is declared that one NEEDS THE PERMISSION OF THE POPE to question something the Church has done.
O
OraProNobisIHM
Guest
2663 doesn’t seem to even begin to start with “permission to criticize the Council”.
And, given the homilies and guidance I’ve gotten from Novus Ordo priests, I’d be SURPRISED if THEY knew what the Catholic Catechism was.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
Hey now, you are being absurdly bullheaded. Lisa is very much for traditional views. She shows no hatred towards traditionalist, nor is she thick-headed. I think you owe her an apology. Once again we can’t openly criticize the council.
O
OraProNobisIHM
Guest
These paragraphs don’t mention JACK about not questioning the Councils.
I accept the Vatican II Council. It happened.
What I object to is the lackadaisical way it was implemented, and the vague ways in which the documents were written.
You can question what the Vatican II documents say, and what they mean - Card. Ratzinger did it. And he did it after the council, too. If I’m recalling correctly, he talks about this In “Salt of the Earth,” and his journal “Communio.”
O
OraProNobisIHM
Guest
Funny, 2032-2043 don’t mention anything about questioning the Council.
O
OraProNobisIHM
Guest
And, not surprisingly, not a mention of questioning anything.
L
Lisa44
Guest
Hi,
Wow, how rude.
My objection, which I stated, was that a site with purportedly “traditional” views on the Catholic Church would link to a Islamic site containing heretical articles about our savior Jesus Christ.
It makes no sense. Catholics came BEFORE islam and yet we cannot buy or make a veil to cover our heads except to buy one from a heretical sect?!
You need to calm down and not assume so much.
Ok, I forgive you. I realize people get hot under the collar and I am that way too.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
these aren’t about criticizing the councils, but rather accepting the Magisterium and not questioning the Magisterium. Please explain more in depth your objection. I want to know what was vague for you. Fisheaters have no respect for Vatican II, but the do have respect for the Pope and everything else. I am simply using the CCC to point out the Magisterium. I have yet to see where Vatican II contradicts the Magisterium. If we aren’t to question the Magisterium, why should we be allowed to question the Council? Not everyone agreed with the changes made with the Council of Trent. Just get over your high horse quit putting the Council down.
O
OraProNobisIHM
Guest
I will do no such thing.
She said:
.
She owes FishEaters an apology for being thick-headed, and not understanding that linking to a website that sells pretty scarves/headdress is not a full and sweeping endorsement of everything that linked website says.
Heck, they DEAL with a linking policy here:
fisheaters.com/contact.html#linking
And, in another page (the “For Catholics” page), they state this:
Posting offsite links above does not imply complete agreement with the sites or their authors.
They deal with this linking issue. Yet Lisa continues to speak against FE as if they are promoting a heresy that Mohammed was on par with Jesus.
Oh, but wait, they MUST ALSO SUPPORT MORMONISM!!!
Because, in their wedding page, they link to this site:
latterdaybride.com/
For good modest wedding dresses.
My statement before stands.
- Status