Vatican II changes things?

[Earnest_Bunbury]

“x” could potentially be infallible, but it is not infallible in any way you could know or determine unless it was defined as infallible by the Church. Vatican II does not teach that the ordinary Magisterium is infallible.
Vatican II, Lumen Gentium #25:
“individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility”

We only know if something is infallible if it is defined as such; otherwise, you cannot know that the ordinary Magisterium is teaching fallibly or infallibly. We give the ordinary Magisterium religious submission but we give the infallible teachings our full and total faith. What happens when the prior ordinary Magisterium said something contrary to the current? or at least seemed to be? And what happens if the infallible Magisterium defined a dogma and the ordinary Magisterium seems to be teaching contrary to that dogma? That is what we are trying to figure out right now and how the statements fit together.

Since you said your approach is to take V2 with the same as preV2 teachings, what do you make of the Church’s teaching on NSOC? How do you understand it? Do you believe that there is salvation outside the Church or that outside the Church certain people can be saved?

How does this jibe with Vat I?:

But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.​

Therefore,​

* faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith,
* to the glory of God our saviour,
* for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
* for the salvation of the christian people,
* with the approval of the sacred council,
* we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

      o when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
            + that is, when,
                 1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
                 2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
                 3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, 
      o he possesses,
            + by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, 
      o that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
      o Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

In post 236 you state:

Furthermore, the Church made solemn dogmatic definitions prior to Vatican II that carry more authority than the current catechism you are reading possesses. True they both come from the same Church, but the prior teachings bear the charism of infallibility whereas the current catechism is part of the ordinary Magisterium and is non-infallible.

It seems that the pope in teaching at Vat II is infallible, that is according to Vat I, in light of:

1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church.

This seems to indicate that Vat II is infallible by being in union with the Vicar of Christ and where ambiguous we must not interpret it ourselves but go to previous teachings which also are infallible. I see no errant teaching in Vat II, only in the interpretation of the "spirit’ of it and the ambitiousness of the council teaching doesn’t nullify it, in fact, it leads us to your point of viewing Vat II in light of what was defined in prior councils.

Outside the Church can be interpreted, whereas “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you”, cannot. This is the basis I use to evangelize.

 

[IVDAE]

How do I answer this?:

"Take your time and read it and look up any information on it. Don’t jump to conclusions by just the first few things but keep reading. I found it interesting, I’m sure you will too.
This is some information I found to be interesting, the RCC had a meeting from 62-65 called Vatican II. What is the Vatican II? My understanding is it took place in October of ‘62. There were 2,540 bishops and others of the RCC gathered in Rome for this session. This session was to make some innovations to the old laws that the RCC followed. They held the last session on December 8, 1965 and when they were finished meeting they basically announced that a lot in the RCC was changing. Changing? No, they don’t change. Let’s see if they do or not…

As a traditionalist V2 for me is a heretical and many changes in the catholic church are cause of some abusing modernist priests.Some priest and theologians are modernist and they are inserting liberal ideas in theology.Unlike in times of Pope Pius X modernist cannot take advance over the Roman Catholic church.In liturgy, many Catholic priests are abusing the mass.They celebrate the holy mass according to their own will.And it is the cause of lack of dicipline of the faithful like every friday, before V2, faithful follow the fasting and abstinence.But now even on good friday or in lenten season, some of the faithfuls do not take fasting and abstinence.Even in ecumenism as we became open to other christian sects, they take opportunity to take advance in our church.Like recruiting some faithfuls to join to their church.

Let us support the motu proprio of our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI!
Thank you holy father for the motu proprio summorum pontificum



SANCTE IUDAE, ORA PRO NOBIS

 

[ron77nyc]

Be careful that you don’t try to interpret the Scriptures on your own apart from Tradition. In all honesty, the things you are saying are the same arguments given by protestants, yet I’m confused because your profile says Catholic.
Your interpretation is misplaced. Can you show me where the Catholic Church you claim to belong to supports such an interpretation as you provided. If not, you are in the dangerous business of interpreting Scripture relying on your own authority rather than the Church. It is quite tempting, but pride often gets in the way, as is evidenced by the 20,000+ protestant sects today all containing individuals believing differently on every issue in the Book. That Bible you are reading came from the Catholic Church, and you only know her books because of her authoritative compiling thereof.

That said, I believe we are getting off topic here… Can we get back to reconciling V2 with pre V2 teachings?

I got it from the Catholic Bishops. It’s their footnote. I posted the url above it.

 

[wisdomseeker]

So, the whole “Do As I Say, Not As I Do” goes into effect? What about leading by example? If the pope commits adultery does he not teach his flock that it’s okay to do so? This is not moral teaching.

And the Inquisition was in the name of Heaven. However, John Paul II apologized for it. This indicates that the past actions and teachings were not, in fact, infallible.

please! lack of understanding is all it is. tell if you can find a perfect human being in this earth. all we can do is to try do what is right. among so many good popes, all you can do is pick the two or three that fell into temptations. St Peter himself denied Christs three times. yet our Lord chose him to be the leader of the Apostles. St Paul killed so many yet our Lord chose him as one of the greatest Apostles. think of these things when reasoning about humans and sins. we are all capable of fall into sin, including you. why then do you judge others?

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

I got it from the Catholic Bishops. It’s their footnote. I posted the url above it.

Also from that website in the intro to the Gospel of Matthew:

The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. This material, called “Q” (probably from the first letter of the German word Quelle, meaning “source”), represents traditions, written and oral, used by both Matthew and Luke. Mark and Q are sources common to the two other synoptic gospels; hence the name the “Two-Source Theory” given to this explanation of the relation among the synoptics.

In addition to what Matthew drew from Mar and Q, his gospel contains material that is found only there. This is often designated “M,” written or oral tradition that was available to the author. Since Mk was written shortly before or shortly after A.D. 70 (see Introduction to Mk), Mt was composed certainly after that date, which marks the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans at the time of the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66-70), and probably at least a decade later since Matthew’s use of Mk presupposes a wide diffusion of that gospel. The post-A.D. 70 date is confirmed within the text by Mat 22:7, which refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.

I don’t know the historicity of this “Q” document which I haven’t seen hide or hair of in the real world, (that is any evidence of any mention of this document existing, just extrapolating its evidence from the similarity of the synoptic Gospels), but it seems to be a favorite of the “Jesus Seminar”, a “think tank” of so-called “theologians” searching for the “historical” Jesus apart from the influence of the Church and in opposition to the Church. This may be a subject for another thread but I see a disconnect between the search for the “historical” Jesus and the Jesus of faith, which the USCCB’s are relying on a seemingly mythological document and involved in a historical search for Jesus.

This disturbs me in that faith in Jesus is set aside in a search for proof for our faith, a result of the lack of faith that permeates the Church and the world in general. Vat II is not the cause of this, but a symptom in its ambiguous wording and the disconnect in continuity with Sacred Tradition. I see the point of those who denigrate Vat II but it still hasn’t been proven that it is heretical. The Church has a teaching that is infallible and a pastoral council doesn’t negate that nor should the sinfulness of priests cast doubt on the Holy Spirit working through them in the sacrifice of the Mass. Pope Benedict is working to restore that continunity with Tradition and the spiritual faith that is our salvation.

 

[una_fides]

How does this jibe with Vat I?:
In post 236 you state…

Regarding that post, you have to read the post I was replying to in order to understand what I was saying. I was not saying that infallible dogmas cannot be understood or identified as such. I was saying that teachings that only fall under the category of the ordinary Magisterium cannot be known to be infallible. That means that the teaching does not fall under the Church’s definition of an infallible statement. Therefore we cannot know it to be infallible. Hope that helps clarify. Sorry for any ambiguity, but I think that if my statement was misunderstood it would have to be understood in light of everything else I’ve said on the thread. This is the same way we must interpret V2, in light of the prior teachings from the same Church.

 

[una_fides]

I got it from the Catholic Bishops. It’s their footnote. I posted the url above it.

Nice try. You did not get your interpretation that basically said to do away with Catholic teaching from the footnote. I was not commenting on the footnote, with which I agree. I was referring to your incorrect understanding of the passage.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

**I totally agree with Mark Shea. Thank you, (name removed by moderator). This makes more sense than any thing I’ve said in this thread. **

I’ll keep typing anyway… una fides, I think that this Vat I statement on the infallibility of the office of the pope is stating that the pope is infallible in any teaching made by him through his office in these conditions:

o when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,

• that is, when,
  **1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,

1. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
2. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,**
   o he possesses,

• by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
  o that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
  o Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

Is it that the catechism of 1994 isn’t an infallible “document”? This seems to indicate that since it was authorized by Pope JPII’s office, everything in it is to be believed by the faithful and is infallible. Am I mistaken?

 

[ron77nyc]

Nice try. You did not get your interpretation that basically said to do away with Catholic teaching from the footnote. I was not commenting on the footnote, with which I agree. I was referring to your incorrect understanding of the passage.

Someone needs to trim away all the useless appendages that have attached themselves to the Church and obscured the message of salvation. Vatican II was trying to say that all baptized Christians are related to the Catholic Church……I think. Protestants went from being called heretics to separated brethren. Now we have priests teaching congregations that those who reject the gospel can be saved by living good lives. If I sound Protestant at times it’s because I admire the Protestants for staying with the simple message of the gospel. We are saved by Jesus. That is also the foundation of Catholicism.

 

[ncjohn]

Thanks very much for posting that article (name removed by moderator). It conveyed everything I’ve tried to say (and more!), but in a so much better way. I’m kind of surprised I had not run across this one before in my studies.

Hopefully it will clear up some of those questions, especially the one on what constitutes being within the Church, that trouble many.

Peace,

 

[ron77nyc]

I totally agree with Mark Shea.

Mark Shea only deals with Pope Boniface. He doesn’t say anything about other popes who were clear about excluding all non-Catholics from salvation.

**Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 - 1445): **"[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

**Pope Benedict XV (A.D. 1914 - 1922): **“Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” (Encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum)

**Pope Pelagius II (A.D. 578 - 590): **“Consider the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord. …Although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be (for them) that crown of faith but the punishment of faithlessness. …Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned. …[If] slain outside the Church, he cannot attain the rewards of the Church.” (Denzinger 246-247)

 

[diggerdomer]

“x” could potentially be infallible, but it is not infallible in any way you could know or determine unless it was defined as infallible by the Church. Vatican II does not teach that the ordinary Magisterium is infallible.
Vatican II, Lumen Gentium #25:
“individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility”

I know Vatican II does not teach that the ordinary Magisterium is infallible.

You seem to confuse, though, the “ordinary Magisterium” with “individual bishops.” The two are not the same, and Vatican II clearly notes that in Lumen Gentium.

Since you said your approach is to take V2 with the same as preV2 teachings, what do you make of the Church’s teaching on NSOC? How do you understand it? Do you believe that there is salvation outside the Church or that outside the Church certain people can be saved?

As I’ve cited before, I go by the approach taught by Church as indicated in the Catechism.

 

[una_fides]

una fides, I think that this Vat I statement on the infallibility of the office of the pope is stating that the pope is infallible in any teaching made by him through his office in these conditions:

Is it that the catechism of 1994 isn’t an infallible “document”? This seems to indicate that since it was authorized by Pope JPII’s office, everything in it is to be believed by the faithful and is infallible. Am I mistaken?

Where does the catechism say that all are bound de fide to believe everything in it? JP2 said that it’s “a sure norm for the faith.” That does not by any means indicate or even hint at infallibility. It does contain some infallible teachings but catechisms are not infallible. Pope’s have also said that if you hold to the teachings of Aquinas that you will never be found departing from the path of truth. Does that mean that Aquinas is infallilbe? No, but it certainly does bolster his writings to an extremely high level of being safeguarded from error, though not entirely. We are only promised complete safeguarding from error in limited circumstances when the pope means to bind the entire Church to believe and hold to certain dogmas of the faith. A catechism is a *summary *of prior Church teachings and does contain many infallible declarations, but just because the Church publishes it and authorizes it does not make it infallible. It falls under the category of the Church’s ordinary Magisterium, and as such requires our religious submission of will.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

I know Vatican II does not teach that the ordinary Magisterium is infallible.

You seem to confuse, though, the “ordinary Magisterium” with “individual bishops.” The two are not the same, and Vatican II clearly notes that in Lumen Gentium.

As I’ve cited before, I go by the approach taught by Church as indicated in the Catechism.

Agreed. It seems that Vat I, as I have stated and posted the evidence, says that when the pope uses his office to teach on the faith as well as morals, he is infallible and I must ascent in faith with the effort of my will, to what Vat II says, in light of previous teachings, as per Pope Benedict in stating the continuity of our Catholic faith. I cannot see how this will lead me down the wide road to perdition.

 

[una_fides]

I know Vatican II does not teach that the ordinary Magisterium is infallible.

As I’ve cited before, I go by the approach taught by Church as indicated in the Catechism.

You said earlier that the ordinary Magisterium can be infallible. I was responding to that because if it is truly ordinary, then it does not possess the charism of infallibility.
Your last line demonstrates that you are avoiding my question entirely because most of this thread has been dedicated to figuring out exactly what the Church taught and meant in its current catechism. I was asking you how you understood it, and what you believed about it, and your only response is that you go by it. Quite evasive to say the least.

 

[PJM]

=aicirt;5222157]I was in high school in the 1960s. All we wanted then was a Sunday Mass said in English. I have never heard a Mass said in Latin since Vatican II. No one complained about not eating meat on Fridays, or fasting at midnight, or wearing head coverings. It wasn’t a problem.

I graduated HS in 1963, and it was an all boy’s Catholic School.

Latin was never an issue of nusense for me, not that I knew all the words, but I did and do know how to follow “the missal.” The issue of piety and sacredness is key to me.

The lack of evidence that Jesus is present in some (should be all) Catholic Churches and the embarrasinf fact that few if any keep silent, genuflect, receive Jesus on the tongue all because it “isn’t cool” is a pathetic example of who we are, what we believe, and what we will tolerate to be accepted with the “in crowd.” What must incomming candidates and catechumes think?

I find it very insulting that the Tabernacle has been removed to a side altar, another section of the church or to a chapel. WHAT is with that? It makes no sense to me at all. If He is not in the main Tabernacle, why genuflect? Does God not deserve to be at the center of His Church? Why was this changed?

Be grateful it was only to a side altar. I have seen MANY churches that require a guide to find the Eucharistic chapel, and even a few churches that have literally a larger janitors closet.

The reason my friend is that a large group of Bishops who “knew more and better than the Pope and the Magistrium, and Vatican II” developed their own NEW Theolgy.

"You can’t have an “active” and a “static” presence at the same time."

To them Jesus in the tabernacle is a “static” presence that competes with and takes precidence over the Transubstanuation (actually transfinalization or transignification) of the bread and wine. See they don’t believe it’s Jesus!

Knowing that for a great many Catholics "out of sight would be out of mind… and oh my were they right! They moved Jesus from the Sanctuary to often VERY secondary places.

The Catechesim teaches:1324 The Eucharist is “the source and summit of the Christian life.” “The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch.”

Current GRIM, Canon Law and Papal teaching have attempted to return Christ Real Presence to the Sanctuary, presnt to all, all of the time. Look at you’re parish Church and see if they were successful.

My present church has hymnals. I haven’t been able to find one old Catholic hymn in it. And I know we never sang these when I went to Catholic school for 12 years.

Are you begaining to see a trend? Why?

We’ve been invited as a Church to attend a Lutheran Church service for the Feast of the Ascension. That’s nice. But I don’t want to go because I don’t know what stand this Church takes on abortion, stem cell research, and gay marriage.

Friend despite, perhaps because of the dismal picture I just painted for you, leaving the RCC would be the GREATEST Spiritual risk you could possible take. DON"T DO IT!

NO where else can you find ligitimately, valid the Seven Sacraments. Especially Confession and Jesus Himsel in Holy Communion. Don’t give up on Christ, and He woun’t give up on you!

Stay and fight for you’re God and His Church. Pray and pray some more. But do not leave the only Church actually founded by Jesus Himself! To do so is “spiritual sucide!”

Love and prayer’s

Pat

 

[aicirt]

I graduated HS in 1963, and it was an all boy’s Catholic School.

Latin was never an issue of nusense for me, not that I knew all the words, but I did and do know how to follow “the missal.” The issue of piety and sacredness is key to me.

The lack of evidence that Jesus is present in some (should be all) Catholic Churches and the embarrasinf fact that few if any keep silent, genuflect, receive Jesus on the tongue all because it “isn’t cool” is a pathetic example of who we are, what we believe, and what we will tolerate to be accepted with the “in crowd.” What must incomming candidates and catechumes think?

Be grateful it was only to a side altar. I have seen MANY churches that require a guide to find the Eucharistic chapel, and even a few churches that have literally a larger janitors closet.

The reason my friend is that a large group of Bishops who “knew more and better than the Pope and the Magistrium, and Vatican II” developed their own NEW Theolgy.

"You can’t have an “active” and a “static” presence at the same time."

To them Jesus in the tabernacle is a “static” presence that competes with and takes precidence over the Transubstanuation (actually transfinalization or transignification) of the bread and wine. See they don’t believe it’s Jesus!

Knowing that for a great many Catholics "out of sight would be out of mind… and oh my were they right! They moved Jesus from the Sanctuary to often VERY secondary places.

The Catechesim teaches:1324 The Eucharist is “the source and summit of the Christian life.” “The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch.”

Current GRIM, Canon Law and Papal teaching have attempted to return Christ Real Presence to the Sanctuary, presnt to all, all of the time. Look at you’re parish Church and see if they were successful.

Are you begaining to see a trend? Why?

Friend despite, perhaps because of the dismal picture I just painted for you, leaving the RCC would be the GREATEST Spiritual risk you could possible take. DON"T DO IT!

NO where else can you find ligitimately, valid the Seven Sacraments. Especially Confession and Jesus Himsel in Holy Communion. Don’t give up on Christ, and He woun’t give up on you!

Stay and fight for you’re God and His Church. Pray and pray some more. But do not leave the only Church actually founded by Jesus Himself! To do so is “spiritual sucide!”

Love and prayer’s

Pat

I don’t intend to leave the Church. Many have gone to other Catholic Churches in the area because of what I have described above and a few other things that have turned them off.

I will not be going to the Lutheran Church.

I watch EWTN a lot. I’ve learned enough about other religions to realize that my religion was a gift the value of which I was not aware of until recently. I’m very concerned about the paths some of these Protestant churches are taking their followers.

The scandal at Notre Dame is mind boggling. I never imagined they’d give him a standing ovation. Father Jenkins should be replaced.

There must have been many Bishops who followed the modern ideas in the 1960s. It could not have started then considering most of the Bishops would have been at least 40 years of age. So when did this influence first come into the Church? And even if the Bishops did want to remove the Tabernacle, why didn’t the Pope stop it?

 

[una_fides]

I just finished reading the Shea document. It contained a few good points, but overall I honestly am not impressed for several reasons. First, his interpretations of Scripture are presented as if they are accurate, yet he cites no Church fathers or Church-given interpretations of those texts in support. I say this because I’ve never encountered those interpretations among the fathers yet I have encountered ones quite different. To say that the sheep and the goats were ignorant of Christ seems to miss the meaning of the passage entirely. I could cite Church fathers, but I don’t think I need to in this instance.
Second, he seems to take a very large view of the Church as if it were something that was larger than the Catholic Church and incorporates all Christians or even all good people. Such idea is a very protestant outlook of the Church and unfortunately has seeped its way into the Church. Most protestants tend to think of the church as a universal invisible society of all who believe in Jesus. The Catholic faith on the other hand holds that the Church is both visible and invisible, both body and soul, a living visible organism. The Mystical Body and the Catholic Church are one in the same.
Pope Boniface VIII. Unam Sanctam – 18 November 1302
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,’ and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed. papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, Encyclical Letter Concerning Some False Opinions Which Threaten to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine, August 12, 1950:
27. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[11] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the True Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith. 28. These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false science. To them We are compelled with grief to repeat once again truths already well known, and to point out with solicitude clear errors and dangers of error. newadvent.org/library/docs_pi12hg.htm
I will point out my last quibble in my next post…

 

[una_fides]

My last problem I have is with the following text:

“It therefore follows that to be subject to the gospel to * any* degree is to be in union, to that degree, with the office of Peter since the office of Peter was created by Christ for one purpose only, to help bring people into subjection to Christ. … If you say to Jesus, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” you are submitting to the judgment of Peter, who said it first (Matthew 16:16). … If you acknowledge the canonicity of the New Testament books, you are likewise submitting to the judgment of the Petrine office, which made that call in the fourth century and ratified it in the sixteenth.”

What Shea fails to point out is the negative side of things as well. He is so apt to point out that if one agrees with a truth then he is in union to that degree with Peter, but what happens when one disagrees with a truth of the faith? To the extent one willfully disagrees with any dogma of the Church, then he is not in union with Peter. Furthermore, if anyone denies the Trinity or the Incarnation, he is a heretic.

Shea concludes with the following: “In short, it is not possible to be a Christian at all without already submitting (whether you realize it or not and whether you like it or not) to Peter in precisely the sense that Unam Sanctam speaks of.”
The problem is that he fails to explain the sense of what that document intended to teach. It was not written or directed to try to get people to partially believe in the gospel and therefore be in that extent in union with the pope. The line on the necessity for salvation for every human creature to be subject to the pope was not written in isolation. To understand what the pope meant, you must read the context. He said that we believe with simplicity that outside the Church there is no salvation nor remission of sins and that this Church is one in faith. Though Shea begins by trying to label himself a moderate by explaining the liberal spectrum and the traditionalists on the other end, he seems to be applying very loose translations and interpretations of this papal bull as well as with the Scriptures he tries to cite in support of his ideas.
If you want to read a good Catholic book on this subject, I’ll suggest again Fr. Muller’s book that can be read online for free: traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/The_Catholic_Dogma/Contents.html
Fr. Muller takes the approach of St. Thomas Aquinas and clearly lays out the Church’s traditional understanding of the dogma of NSOC.
The Church has held Aquinas’s theology above all others in her 2000 year history. Pope Leo XIII wrote the following about the angelic doctor in his encyclical Aeterni Patris: “Innocent VI: “His [Aquinas’] teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.””

 

[una_fides]

There must have been many Bishops who followed the modern ideas in the 1960s. It could not have started then considering most of the Bishops would have been at least 40 years of age. So when did this influence first come into the Church? And even if the Bishops did want to remove the Tabernacle, why didn’t the Pope stop it?

My personal opinion is that modern popes have feared schism and have been more than willing to placate people and just give them whatever they want. Communion in the hand (CITH) is a great example. It began by people rebelling against the Church’s laws and illicitly doing the practice. These liberals likely did not even believe in the Real Presence and those who wish to reduce faith in the Real Presence of Christ are always supporters of CITH. After all, why receive on the tongue if it’s just a piece of bread. Wouldn’t it make sense to just pass it around like the protestants do? I used to be baptist, presbyterian, pentecostal, etc… and when these groups did “communion” (which was rare) they would pass around crackers and grape juice to people sitting in the pews. No doubt that is the end goal of liberals to destroy faith in the RP and make the Mass more and more into a common ordinary meal. Rather than punish the dissenters, like popes traditionally have done, Paul VI rewarded them by giving them an indult to receive CITH, and now the practice has become widespread throughout the US and in some places they are trying to forbid reception on the tongue in the name of this silly swine flu. The Church is lying in shambles, and without serious discipline or divine intervention, I don’t think we’re going to see the light of day any time soon.