Vatican II

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

The other reference Lumen Gentium no. 16 provides so as to make clear what it meant is the following:

Letter of the Holy Office, approved and promulgated by Pius XII (August 8, 1949), against the dissent and disobedience of Fr. Leonard Feeney from the Archdiocese of Boston (source):

…the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate [Feeneyism] controversy arose from the fact that the [doctrinal matters were] not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the [Feeneyist movement] refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities…

… dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.

… no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

… that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that ***at least he be united to her by desire and longing. ***

…*** this desire need not always be explicit***, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God. … the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire. … those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation… But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith…

… Hence, one cannot understand how the [Feeneyists] can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of … the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.

Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute … presents himself as a “Defender of the Faith,” and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church…

Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church “only by an unconscious desire.” Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation."

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

We are to accept all of the teachings of the Council. To not do so is to become a “cafeteria Catholic” in which on picks and chooses what one will accept and what one will reject.

Deacon Ed

Actually it appears to be a good – you are a physician, not a theologian or a historian by your own admission.

Indeed.

The term “Novus Ordo” refers to the draft of the Mass of Paul VI. One cannot be “Novus Ordo” and remain human. I am a deacon of the Catholic Church – to be precise, I am a bi-ritual deacon serving both the Latin Church and the Melkite Church (Byzantine Rite).

Yes, precisely, I am in agreement that one cannot be Novus Ordo and remain human. It is good that you have made the admission that you are bi-ritual deacon serving both the Latin Church and the Melkite Church. Melkite from the Syriac word malkayâ, as I recall from my limited reading, was originally used as a pejorative after the acrimonious division that occurred in Eastern Christianity after the Council of Chalcedon (451). Its modern usage is almost exclusively attributed to Greek Catholics from the Middle East. This issue of Melkite faith and the Melkite Church" the Diaspora" is another discussion altogether, confusing but yet intriguing.

The Mass was changed because the Church Fathers at the Second Vatican Council decided that there was a need for a change. That need had been evident for nearly 100 years – a need reflected in the so-called “Liturgical Movement” begun in the early 19th century, a movement that was actively supported by most popes.

I see no reasoning here. This statement lacks precision, can you define the need you mentioned and what triggered this need? In addition, why was the movement not supported by all popes? Do you not think that, as I am not the theologian or historian (still have time since I am only 27!), it would be necessary to start in 14th and 15th centuries and the origin of Humanism and the Renaissance, then to review 16th -century Protestant Reformation, the 18th-century rise of Liberalism and the extension of its dominion everywhere over minds and society; and, finally, to examine the Marxist revolution and the disaster it brought to realize the state of the Church today?

No, there were six protestant clergymen who were invited to listen to the discussions and, if asked directly, to offer suggestions or ideas. They had no direct (name removed by moderator)ut other than in response to questions. Outside the consilium meetings they did meet with the periti to discuss what had transpired, but none of their (name removed by moderator)ut (with two exceptions) affected the outcome. Those exceptions dealt with preaching and with congregational singing.

We shall revisit your statements here as there is documented evidence to suggest the contrary. There is not enough allotted space here.

This would require a couse lasting several semesters. What, precisely, do you wish to know regarding these documents?

My vocation as you may understand, does not permit me to have time to commit of several semesters in measure. I shall attempt to assist you, if I may with all due respect, with one part, let us say the Decree on Ecumenism: Unitatis Redintegratio.
How does No. 3 coincide with New Testament teachings of:
St. Paul to Ephesians 4:5 One Lord+, one faith, one baptism. One GOD+, and Father of all…, St. Mat 28:19-20, …teach ye all nations; baptizing then in the name of the Father+, and of the Son+, and of the Holy Ghost+. Teaching them to OBSERVE ALL things whatsoever I have commanded you… St. Mk. 16:15-16…preach the gospel to every creature. He that Believeth and is baptized, shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned, and
St. Jn. 14:6 Jesus+ saith to him: I AM+ the way, and the truth and the life. No man cometh to the Father+, but by Me.?
The ecumenism of today involves all the different religions.
[The notion of “churches” in the plural was never used before the Council to refer to the Protestant denominations or the schismatic Orthodox churches. It meant different local churches around the diocesan bishops and their clergy: viz. the “Church of Paris” or the “Church of Dublin”, or the “Church of Rome: the bishop with his clergy, surrounded by his flock”(Rev. Fr. Franz Schmidberger)].
Also,* No.4 and No. 8**: How do they relate to, Our Lord+ is semper vivens ad interpellandum pro nobis: He+ is always living and pleading the cause of His Church and His elect, as St. Paul says (Heb. 7: 25)?

And I’m glad to provide whatever I can.

As am I. No doubt.

Respectfully and GOD+ Bless,
Dr. Dipak, BSc MS MD

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Can someone please clarify this?

Benedict XVI Says We Are Indebted To The Koran And Participates in the Distribution Of It:

Benedict XVI, Address to Foundation for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue, Feb. 1, 2007: “… the first result of your work: a joint edition of the three Sacred Books of the three monotheistic religions in their original language and in chronological order… we, Jews, Christians and Muslims are called to develop the bonds that unite us… Thus, you have produced this beautiful edition of the three books which are the source of our religious beliefs, creators of culture, that have made a deep mark on peoples and to which we are indebted today. The reinterpretation, and for some people, the discovery of texts that so many people across the world venerate as sacred, demands mutual respect in trusting dialogue.

“… a common task of reflection. This is a labor of reason for which I wholeheartedly appeal, with you, to be able to examine God’s mystery in the light of our respective religious traditions and wisdom so as to discern the values likely to illumine the men and women of all the peoples on earth, whatever their culture and religion…. Thus, we will be able to make headway in interreligious and intercultural dialogue which today is more necessary than ever: a true dialogue, respectful of differences, courageous, patient and persevering, which finds its strength in prayer and is nourished by the hope that dwells in all who believe in God and put their trust in him.” (L’Osservatore Romano, Feb. 7, 2007, p. 5)
Please reference the Vatican website:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2007/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070201_dialogo-interreligioso_en.html

Am I understanding this correctly or not? From what I understand, in other words, this set (which Benedict XVI is praising) contains the “Hebrew Bible,” the New Testament and the Muslim Koran (which denies the Divinity of Christ and blasphemes the Holy Trinity) O People of the Book, commit no excesses in your religion; nor say of God anything but the truth. The Messiah Jesus son of Mary was (no more than) a Messenger of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him; so believe in God and His Messengers. Say not “Trinity”: desist! It will be better for you: for God is One: Glory be to Him! (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs. (Qur’an 4:171)]

They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. ***(Qur'an 5:73)

---

Benedict XVI speaks positively of all of these books, and says we are “indebted” to them. If that blasphemes the Holy Trinity+ then is this apostasy?

What is the truth here?

I would greatly appreciate clarification with this address.

Respectfully and God+ Bless.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Do YOU

agree with the “most common and probable” opinion expressed by St. Robert that the pope cannot pertinaciously teach contrary to the faith?

I do.

Please see post #220 and the following:

In 2001, the Vatican approved a document with the Assyrian Schismatic Church of the East. The document says that members of the Vatican II Church can go to the schismatic church and receive Communion and vice versa. The document was approved by Benedict XVI. The problem with this document, besides the fact that the Assyrian schismatics are not Catholics, is that this schismatic liturgy has no words of consecration, no “institution narrative.” Benedict XVI
mentioned the problem in his book Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith:
Benedict XVI, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, 2002, p. 232: “…This case needed special studies to be made, because the Anaphora of Addai and Mari most commonly in use by the Assyrians does not include an institution narrative. But these difficulties were able to be overcome…” (Benedict XVI, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, p. 232).Benedict XVI admits that this schismatic liturgy has no “institution narrative,” which is the words of consecration. But he still approved receiving Communion at this schismatic liturgy which has no words of consecration.

Benedict XVI came to this incredible decision because he denies that words are necessary for a valid consecration!
Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 377: “…we are witnesses today of a new integralism [read: traditionalism] that may seem to support what is strictly Catholic but in reality corrupts it to the core. It produces a passion of suspicions, the animosity of which is far from the spirit of the gospel. There is an obsession with the letter that
regards the liturgy of the Church as invalid and thus puts itself outside the Church. It is forgotten here that the validity of the liturgy depends primarily, not on specific words, but on the community of the Church…” (Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 377). This is a total rejection of Catholic sacramental teaching**. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1439:** “All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected.” (Denzinger 695).

The* fact that Benedict XVI holds that Masses without any words of consecration* are valid proves that this is contrary to the Catholic Faith. By his own words, he is a manifest heretic against the Church’s sacramental teaching. And this heresy is repeated in a number of his books. This is what I have read in the above cited references. Please if there is another explanation I would greatly like to hear it, since I thought his words and works spoke for themselves.

Respectfully and GOD+ Bless.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Can someone please clarify this?

Benedict XVI Says We Are Indebted To The Koran And Participates in the Distribution Of It:

Benedict XVI, Address to Foundation for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue, Feb. 1, 2007: “… the first result of your work: a joint edition of the three Sacred Books of the three monotheistic religions in their original language and in chronological order… we, Jews, Christians and Muslims are called to develop the bonds that unite us… Thus, you have produced this beautiful edition of the three books which are the source of our religious beliefs, creators of culture, that have made a deep mark on peoples and to which we are indebted today. The reinterpretation, and for some people, the discovery of texts that so many people across the world venerate as sacred, demands mutual respect in trusting dialogue.

“… a common task of reflection. This is a labor of reason for which I wholeheartedly appeal, with you, to be able to examine God’s mystery in the light of our respective religious traditions and wisdom so as to discern the values likely to illumine the men and women of all the peoples on earth, whatever their culture and religion…. Thus, we will be able to make headway in interreligious and intercultural dialogue which today is more necessary than ever: a true dialogue, respectful of differences, courageous, patient and persevering, which finds its strength in prayer and is nourished by the hope that dwells in all who believe in God and put their trust in him.” (L’Osservatore Romano, Feb. 7, 2007, p. 5)
Please reference the Vatican website:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2007/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070201_dialogo-interreligioso_en.html

Am I understanding this correctly or not? From what I understand, in other words, this set (which Benedict XVI is praising) contains the “Hebrew Bible,” the New Testament and the Muslim Koran (which denies the Divinity of Christ and blasphemes the Holy Trinity) O People of the Book, commit no excesses in your religion; nor say of God anything but the truth. The Messiah Jesus son of Mary was (no more than) a Messenger of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him; so believe in God and His Messengers. Say not “Trinity”: desist! It will be better for you: for God is One: Glory be to Him! (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs. (Qur’an 4:171)]

They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. ***(Qur’an 5:73) ***

Benedict XVI speaks positively of all of these books, and says we are “indebted” to them. If that blasphemes the Holy Trinity+ then is this apostasy?

What is the truth here?

I would greatly appreciate clarification with this address.

Respectfully and God+ Bless.

The truth is that this is a book designed for a specific target audience (not for general circulation) to allow a single reference work that shows the teachings of these three religions. As I pointed out in a PM to you earlier today, this is not a matter of ecumenism but of interreligious dialogue. The pope specifically lays out the reason for this work:

For this reason it is henceforth invaluable to have at our disposal a common reference point, thanks to the work you have done. Thus, we will be able to make headway in interreligious and intercultural dialogue which today is more necessary than ever: a true dialogue, respectful of differences, courageous, patient and persevering, which finds its strength in prayer and is nourished by the hope that dwells in all who believe in God and put their trust in him.

Dialogue requires a common vocabulary. This work helps to set before the participants of such a dialogue the texts from which that common vocabulary can be drawn. It is not an endorsement of Islam as a “true faith” (which seems to be the thrust of your question).

Deacon Ed

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is now closed. Thank you to all who participated.