Vatican II

[bear06]

Again we have not 1 but two quotes from Cardinal Ratzinger saying that the council was 1) binding and 2)infallible. Was he wrong? These quotes require no interpretation.

It is a necessary task to defend the Second Vatican Council against Msgr. Lefebvre, as** valid, and as binding **upon the Church. … [Vatican II is] one part of the unbroken, the unique Tradition of the Church and of her faith." (Cardinal Ratzinger’s July 13, 1988 remarks to the Bishops of Chile regarding the Lefebvre Schism).

“… it is clear that **conciliar decisions are infallible **in the sense that I can be confident that here the inheritance of Christ is correctly interpreted” (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Canon of Criticism, Salt of the Earth [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1997])

:
“You may not, however, affirm that the conciliar texts, which are magisterial texts, are incompatible with the Magisterium and with Tradition.” (Cardinal Ratzinger letter to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on July 20, 1983)

 

[GerardP]

So, do you agree or disagree with this holy saint and Doctor of Catholicism?

St. Catherine of Siena:

Do you agree or disagree that “there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope.” (Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)

Dissension from what the Pope formally teaches to the universal Church has never been compatible with traditional Catholicism.

This raises some interesting questions.

Is it a sin to disagree with a comment by St. Catherine?

And was Pope St. Pius X speaking infallibly when he stated that? or…could he be wrong? (it could depend on the context.)

Is it a sin to treat fallible commentary of Popes and Saints as irresistible dogmas?

Which leads to, Is a Pope irresistible in all things?

Is a Pope impeccable?

Can a Pope command you to sin, as Pope Stephen forced a Deacon to answer for the corpse of Pope Formosus at the trial where he nullified everything Formosus ever did?

 

[marymonde]

I believe he asked if you agreed or disagree with the quote by Saint Catherine.

Look further up and see what else it says…

Yes. Contrast this to the view that “pastoral” means “not binding.” Only dissidents have taken such a view.<<<

 

[GerardP]

Again we have not 1 but two quotes from Cardinal Ratzinger saying that the council was 1) binding and 2)infallible. Was he wrong? These quotes require no interpretation.

It’s hard to figure out even what he was saying:

"… it is clear…

Clear to who?

that conciliar decisions are infallible

How can a decision without a definition be infallible? There’s no promise of good fruit from policy changes.

in the sense…

Are there other senses?

that I can be confident

What about the rest of the world?

that here the inheritance of Christ is correctly interpreted

What is the inheritance of Christ? What did Jesus “inherit”? Could that be suffering and death? Interpreted for who?

One more time.

"… it is clear

…that conciliar decisions are infallible…

…in the sense…

…that I can be confident…

…that here the inheritance of Christ is correctly interpreted"

Is there anything there besides him saying that he’s personally confident that this mysterious inheritance of Christ is correctly interpreted? Whatever THAT means.

 

[GerardP]

I believe he asked if you agreed or disagree with the quote by Saint Catherine.

Is that an accurate quote from St. Catherine? Because in English at least it doesn’t make any sense.

What is “Divine Obedience” and if it is “Divine” how can it be made “more perfect”?? It doesn’t make sense logically.

Obviously St. Paul dissented from St. Peter’s decision to eat with the Jews as a Jew in Antioch and shun the Gentiles.

So, either there is a problem with the translation or the context or it’s just pious talk from St. Catherine without any real doctrinal force.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You are being uncharitable to say the least. No name calling is on the top of this list in this forum. I don’t care how you try to disguise what you are implying. You ARE saying I am a dissident and Didier AVP as well.

I saw no name calling. And there is nothing lacking in charity in attempting to keep someone from leading other souls away from the Truth of the Church. Whether one falls out of the left side or the right side of the boat, one may still find oneself outside the boat.

 

[bear06]

Look further up and see what else it says…

Yes. Contrast this to the view that “pastoral” means “not binding.” Only dissidents have taken such a view.<<<

marymonde, this is a true statement and the dissidents on both sides of the coin have consitantly said “We don’t have to listen to VII. It was only pastoral.”

We have shown Cardinal Ratzinger addressing this when he says:

It is a necessary task to defend the Second Vatican Council against Msgr. Lefebvre, as valid, and as binding upon the Church. … [Vatican II is] one part of the unbroken, the unique Tradition of the Church and of her faith." (Cardinal Ratzinger’s July 13, 1988 remarks to the Bishops of Chile regarding the Lefebvre Schism).

 

[Didier_AVP]

I think there is a double and contradicting acting of the Catholics pro II Vatican Council (IIVC), facing the non catholics are very kind and open but facing Catholics pro Tradition are very severe.​

Bear06 said:
The Pope never told me to kiss the Koran. It was a personal act. An official teaching is a whole other ballgame. We can’t compare apples to oranges.​

Exactly!. At the same time you explain this, you give me some reason, because as a I said, the IIVC can not be interpreted against the Traditions and Teachings of the Church, specificly in the matter of Tridentine Mass, a Canonized Mass, so if I want to follow a Canonized Mass as the Tridentine Mass is, I am agree with the Teachings of the Church.​

itsjustdave1988 said:
So, do you agree or disagree with this holy saint and Doctor of Catholicism?​

First, I am completely agree with Catherine of Siena, I am not against the Tradition of the Church, on the contrary the Tradition is our shelter.​

Second, I think the present situation of the Church is more than obey or not to obey. As I established in my last posting, even if the whole catholicity consider the IIVC according the Tradition, the facts of the men of the Church are very strange. They can not proscribe or ban the Latin Mass because the canons of Trento Council can not be abrogated and they said that Tridentine Mass is forever.​

What do we have to obey, the Teachings of the Church or just be obedients, whatever the command would be?​

AMDG

 

[bear06]

Clear to who?

Please tell me what is unclear about this statement:

It is a necessary task to defend the Second Vatican Council against Msgr. Lefebvre, as valid, and as binding upon the Church. … [Vatican II is] one part of the unbroken, the unique Tradition of the Church and of her faith." (Cardinal Ratzinger’s July 13, 1988 remarks to the Bishops of Chile regarding the Lefebvre Schism).

 

[bear06]

Is that an accurate quote from St. Catherine? Because in English at least it doesn’t make any sense.

What is “Divine Obedience” and if it is “Divine” how can it be made “more perfect”?? It doesn’t make sense logically.

Obviously St. Paul dissented from St. Peter’s decision to eat with the Jews as a Jew in Antioch and shun the Gentiles.

So, either there is a problem with the translation or the context or it’s just pious talk from St. Catherine without any real doctrinal force.

Eeek! Now we dismissing the writings of St. Catherine? Sigh! What has this come to?

 

[GerardP]

And there is nothing lacking in charity in attempting to keep someone from leading other souls away from the Truth of the Church. Whether one falls out of the left side or the right side of the boat, one may still find oneself outside the boat.

Hmmm…interesting I saw no attempts to lead anyone away from the truth of the Church.

This right /left thing doesn’t work either unless the Truth is actually the middle ground. Which it isn’t always.

2+2=4 or 2+2=6 or, 2+2=8 is generally the big mistake of our modern era. 2+2=6 is the agreed upon truth using that dialectical model.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

They can not proscribe or ban the Latin Mass because the canons of Trento Council can not be abrogated and they said that Tridentine Mass is forever.

On the contrary, they can, using the same power and authority that was used by Trent to establish the Tridentine Mass.

 

[Didier_AVP]

Please tell me what is unclear about this statement:

This is not true, because Monsignor Lefebvre´s intention was never to be separated of the Church, in fact, the SSPX has not jurisdiction, so the schism is not confirmed. Cardinal Castrillon Hoyo´s statements, unofficial statements, said: “It cannot be said in correct, exact, and precise terms that there is a schism. There is a schismatic attitude in the fact of consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate. They are within the Church. There is only the fact that a full, more perfect communion is lacking – as was stated during the meeting with Bishop Fellay – a fuller communion, because communion does exist.” Obviusly, Rome does not recognize an “urgency state” at the Church, but Monsignor Lefebvre acted under this criterion.​

 

[Didier_AVP]

On the contrary, they can, using the same power and authority that was used by Trent to establish the Tridentine Mass.

No they CAN NOT, these are CANONS under penalty of EXCOMMUNICATION.​

This is as real as the fact that IIVC did not dare to did such thing.​

The fact is that IIVC did not ban the Latin Mass. The Pope never even spoke Ex Cathedra at IIVC.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Hmmm…interesting I saw no attempts to lead anyone away from the truth of the Church.

This right /left thing doesn’t work either unless the Truth is actually the middle ground. Which it isn’t always.

2+2=4 or 2+2=6 or, 2+2=8 is generally the big mistake of our modern era. 2+2=6 is the agreed upon truth using that dialectical model.

Hmmmm…interesting. I see several attempts to lead people away from the truth of the Church, of which VII, the post-conciliar popes, the NO Mass, etc. are a part.

And in this instance, I was talking about a boat, the Barque of Peter. But ok, we’ll use your word “ground,” in fact, let’s say it’s a path. Our Lord said,“The way is narrow and few are they that find it.” If you have narrow path, with a precipice on either side over which you could fall by venturing too close to either edge, common sense, mere self-preservation and self-interest, would dictate that the safest place is right straight up the middle. Who are we to trust, the Popes and the Council or the commentators on the Popes and the Council (of either leftist or rightest persuasion)?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

No they CAN NOT, these are CANONS under penalty of EXCOMMUNICATION.​

This is as real as the fact that IIVC did not dare to did such thing.​

The fact is that IIVC did not ban the Latin Mass. The Pope never even spoke Ex Cathedra at IIVC.

The Mass is a matter of discipline. Though it has certain immutable parts (essentials that cannot be changed, ie, “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood”, etc.), the Mass can change (and has).

And note I did not say that the Pope/VII banned the Tridentine Mass. But I am saying that the Pope CAN. The disciplines of the Church (as Dave has pointed out) enjoy only a negative infallibility, that is to say that they cannot lead the faithful to impiety (a declaration of Trent). They are not dogmas, however, but the vehicles through which dogma is expressed (or in the instance of the Mass, through which a dogma is made real or effective).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

This is not true, because Monsignor Lefebvre´s intention was never to be separated of the Church, in fact, the SSPX has not jurisdiction, so the schism is not confirmed. Cardinal Castrillon Hoyo´s statements, unofficial statements, said: “It cannot be said in correct, exact, and precise terms that there is a schism. There is a schismatic attitude in the fact of consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate. They are within the Church. There is only the fact that a full, more perfect communion is lacking – as was stated during the meeting with Bishop Fellay – a fuller communion, because communion does exist.” Obviusly, Rome does not recognize an “urgency state” at the Church, but Monsignor Lefebvre acted under this criterion.​

(Sigh) As a new poster, perhaps you’re not aware that this has been argued repeatedly in these forums. Why don’t you do a search of the fora for this topic? The Archbishop died excommunicated, the four bishops are excommunicated, the priests are suspended ad divinis, and the faithful are warned against falling into schism by association with them. A papal decree outweighs a journal’s interview with a cardinal.

 

[Didier_AVP]

The Mass is a matter of discipline. Though it has certain immutable parts (essentials that cannot be changed, ie, “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood”, etc.), the Mass can change (and has).

And note I did not say that the Pope/VII banned the Tridentine Mass. But I am saying that the Pope CAN. The disciplines of the Church (as Dave has pointed out) enjoy only a negative infallibility, that is to say that they cannot lead the faithful to impiety (a declaration of Trent). They are not dogmas, however, but the vehicles through which dogma is expressed (or in the instance of the Mass, through which a dogma is made real or effective).

I agree, but don’t forget that in fact the main change was a traslation, and thousands of Catholics do not want a translation, we want the Latin Mass and there is nothing against this in IIVC. Rome is obstructing this Mass, why?. My point is to show that something very strange is happend in the Church. Why do we have to get permission?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I agree, but don’t forget that in fact the main change was a traslation, and thousands of Catholics do not want a translation, we want the Latin Mass and there is nothing against this in IIVC. Rome is obstructing this Mass, why?. My point is to show that something very strange is happend in the Church. Why do we have to get permission?

Shortly, you won’t have to get a permission. I very much doubt that Rome is obstructing anything, though I can think of quite a few bishops in the West who might be.

 

[GerardP]

(Sigh) A papal decree outweighs a journal’s interview with a cardinal.

What do you mean by “outweighs”?

Doesn’t the weight of something relate directly to the truth contained in it?

If a bridgebuilder makes a bridge that collapses and a handyman makes one that stands up and remains standing against the same forces, doesn’t the handyman have the truth on his side regardless of his lack of credentials?