Vatican II

[GerardP]

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).

This is true only so far as what the council decrees. The Council may give a bishop permission to do something. That is not necessarily a negative. But the Council can’t guarantee that the bishop’s implementation of the Council will not lead the faithful to impiety. Cardinal Mahoney is a master of appealing to the documents out of Rome and VII to justify his liturgical abominations. And he’s right in that Vatican II gives him the right to mess with things. Because Vatican II had all of those ambiguities which are left to the discretion of the local bishop.

 

[Didier_AVP]

(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.

I can not understand that attitude, let me tell you that there is not concluding evidence of the schism, it is incredible that the solution for the Catholics would be “forget about the matter”. SSPX just need the support of God, but what about the conscience of the catholics, you are saying fair or unfair I do not care. We are Catholics too, do not foget that.

 

[Didier_AVP]

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.

And they are obstructing…

 

[JKirkLVNV]

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?

Doesn’t fit. The POPE is, by canon law, the Supreme Legislator. IN canon law, the Supreme Legislator is the final interpreter, ie, canon law means what HE says it means. Popes (and bishops) determine who is or who is NOT in communion with them. The Pope, interpreting the law without appeal, determine that the Achbishop and the four ordinands had excommunicated themselves and simply confirmed it.

Cardinal Kasper has bounced all over the world saying things in the interests of ecumenism, some of which I believe to be questionable. Cardinals may well have all manner of opinions. A papal decree has the force of law.

 

[GerardP]

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)?

Wouldn’t it depend on what the Popes and the Councils told you to do? If the Popes and Council said, “Okay. We’re not going to lead you. You follow the guy in front of you. He might not be walking straight but that’s what you are to do because we gave him authority to lead you.” And then the guy says, “Okay. Ignore the Pope and wear this blindfold.”

If the previous Popes all said, “Follow…this way…” and left a map. Would you follow the map or follow the guys who want to blindfold you and are walking without a map or don’t know the language of the map and the Popes who have forgotten or refuse to say, “Follow…this way…” and instead say, “Follow…that guy…”

Worse, “That guy” might be intent on leading you over the cliff.

St. Paul didn’t follow St. Peter’s lead at Antioch. He said basically, “This is messed up and it’s your fault Peter. And I’m going to tell you it’s your fault in front of all these people because you are not doing what we all know to be the right thing.”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Wouldn’t it depend on what the Popes and the Councils told you to do? If the Popes and Council said, “Okay. We’re not going to lead you. You follow the guy in front of you. He might not be walking straight but that’s what you are to do because we gave him authority to lead you.” And then the guy says, “Okay. Ignore the Pope and wear this blindfold.”

If the previous Popes all said, “Follow…this way…” and left a map. Would you follow the map or follow the guys who want to blindfold you and are walking without a map or don’t know the language of the map and the Popes who have forgotten or refuse to say, “Follow…this way…” and instead say, “Follow…that guy…”

Worse, “That guy” might be intent on leading you over the cliff.

St. Paul didn’t follow St. Peter’s lead at Antioch. He said basically, “This is messed up and it’s your fault Peter. And I’m going to tell you it’s your fault in front of all these people because you are not doing what we all know to be the right thing.”

And it takes a Saint Paul to do that. Are you that Saint Paul?

In the absence of a Saint Paul, we’d best listen to the pope. You seem to imply that there might be a disconnect between this one (or his immediate predecessors) and the ones who went before. There isn’t .

 

[GerardP]

Doesn’t fit. The POPE is, by canon law, the Supreme Legislator. IN canon law, the Supreme Legislator is the final interpreter, ie, canon law means what HE says it means.

What about reality outside of Canon Law (which is human law)?

Schism and excommunication have both Canonical and Theological meanings. The Pope can have authority canonically and still be wrong theologically. Don’t you agree?

Popes (and bishops) determine who is or who is NOT in communion with them.

Only canonically. That’s why a Pope can override another Pope on these issues as with the trial of Formosus and all of the subsequent reversals.

The Pope, interpreting the law without appeal, determine that the Achbishop and the four ordinands had excommunicated themselves and simply confirmed it.

Are you saying that the Pope is infallible in this determination and that he gets the protection of the Holy Ghost when he interprets laws? Where is his free will if he is an unjust man and decides to abuse his power? Aren’t these possibilities?

Cardinal Kasper has bounced all over the world saying things in the interests of ecumenism, some of which I believe to be questionable. Cardinals may well have all manner of opinions. A papal decree has the force of law

This isn’t a question of power. The Pope has the power to do a number of things. This has to do with the matter of Truth and Justice as well as the theological realities present.

It’s reasonable to conclude that Cardinal Kaspar does not hold the Catholic faith when you consider his statements and writings. He’s a heretic according to the facts. Until a Pope declares him a heretic he won’t be considered one canonically.

In other words, he wore a yellow hat and later switched to a green hat. And until the Pope tells us he’s wearing a green hat
no one is allowed to admit the truth that he’s wearing a green hat. We all have to pretend that he’s wearing a yellow hat.

The trouble is when the Pope is publicly saying he’s wearing a yellow hat when it’s obviously green.

The same is true with LeFebvre. The Pope said he’ s excommunicated himself for wearing a green hat when LeFebvre isn’t even wearing a hat.

The books might record that LeFebvre wore a green hat because the Pope bullied it into the records. But the records don’t speak the truth.

 

[bear06]

Wouldn’t it depend on what the Popes and the Councils told you to do? If the Popes and Council said, “Okay. We’re not going to lead you. You follow the guy in front of you. He might not be walking straight but that’s what you are to do because we gave him authority to lead you.” And then the guy says, “Okay. Ignore the Pope and wear this blindfold.”

If the previous Popes all said, “Follow…this way…” and left a map. Would you follow the map or follow the guys who want to blindfold you and are walking without a map or don’t know the language of the map and the Popes who have forgotten or refuse to say, “Follow…this way…” and instead say, “Follow…that guy…”

Worse, “That guy” might be intent on leading you over the cliff.

St. Paul didn’t follow St. Peter’s lead at Antioch. He said basically, “This is messed up and it’s your fault Peter. And I’m going to tell you it’s your fault in front of all these people because you are not doing what we all know to be the right thing.”

Uh, I would follow the guys who follow Peter (the Pope). We are not called to follow bishops when they are not in communion with the Holy Father. When they are, we must follow.

And, BTW, this is a rather skewed view of what happened with Peter and Paul. Again, you are taking a private act by the pope and making it a public teaching which did not happen. Peter made the public teaching and then didn’t follow it.

 

[Didier_AVP]

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.

Another matter that Rome do not want to talk about: The Consecration of Russia, of course in the terms that Our Lady wished.​

But what about Catholics pro IIVC?. Do you want the Pope to do this?. Or it is done as JPII said, even when Our Lady’s conditions were not satisfied.​

We, Catholics followers of the Latin Mass desire and wait for that day.​

Have you ever thought that the fulfillment of this petition of Our Lady is anti-ecumenical?

 

[GerardP]

And it takes a Saint Paul to do that. Are you that Saint Paul?

Maybe. Maybe not. How would you determine that?
Would you have opposed St. Paul at the time even though he was proven to be right?

In the absence of a Saint Paul, we’d best listen to the pope. You seem to imply that there might be a disconnect between this one (or his immediate predecessors) and the ones who went before. There isn’t

Our Saints are living. We have St. Paul. And we have the tradition of St. Paul (who didn’t know he was “St” Paul at the time) and it’s handed down to us in the Church. “But if WE or an Angel of light preach a gospel different from the one we have given…”

Why did St. Paul put that “WE” in there?

And…by saying that “we’d best listen to the Pope” if we don’t understand him and it harms our faith, we’d best listen to the Popes of before because we understand them. The current Popes have to reconcile what they say with what came before. Until they do speak with the understandable voice of Peter, we won’t correctly follow them. And that could be disastrous. Paul VI told us to follow the bishops that didn’t understand the Council. If they did, B16 wouldn’t be talking about the failed implementation of the Council.

So, until they straighten it all out and heal the rupture of discontinuity and clearly show the continuity. I’ll stick with the tried and true Trent Catechism, Thomas Aquinas, and the clear teaching of the Popes about the Catholic Faith. And I’ll be wary of reading JPII’s “personal reflections” in his encyclicals and I won’t necessarily go along with B16’s book on Jesus if it seems to contradict or affects what I’ve learned from the Magisterial teachings of the Church about our Divine Lord and Savior.

There’s a huge difference between listening to failed policies and dubious political commentaries of a particular curia vs. listening to true magisterial teaching either from a previous or the same curia.

 

[GerardP]

Uh, I would follow the guys who follow Peter (the Pope). We are not called to follow bishops when they are not in communion with the Holy Father. When they are, we must follow. .

Even when they are objectively wrong? Sorry. That is the sin of servility. If you know better, you are obligated to fight for the truth.

And, BTW, this is a rather skewed view of what happened with Peter and Paul. Again, you are taking a private act by the pope and making it a public teaching which did not happen. Peter made the public teaching and then didn’t follow it

That’s the crux of the matter. The post-conciliar Popes have done scandalous private acts. The distinction between Petrine teaching and private acts are not made. It is all treated as Petrine teaching when it clearly is not.

Ecumenism is a policy. It’s not a teaching. Religious Liberty can be understood as a policy, not a teaching. In fact, the only way Vatican II understands it is as a policy. Collegiality is a policy, not a teaching.

If a Pope tells me to follow a heretic. I will not. Vatican I magisterially states that I must submit “True” Obedience.

Any obedience based on a lie…(the lie being, “This man Bishop Heretic is your Shepherd and he’ll lead you correctly.” ) must be resisted.

 

[bear06]

Maybe. Maybe not. How would you determine that?

Would you have opposed St. Paul at the time even though he was proven to be right?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Schism and excommunication have both Canonical and Theological meanings. The Pope can have authority canonically and still be wrong theologically. Don’t you agree? **Yes, but OBJECTIVELY the Popes word as Supreme Legislator is all we have to go on. **

Only canonically. That’s why a Pope can override another Pope on these issues as with the trial of Formosus and all of the subsequent reversals. Right, and the point is it takes a pope, not a cardinal

Are you saying that the Pope is infallible in this determination and that he gets the protection of the Holy Ghost when he interprets laws? Where is his free will if he is an unjust man and decides to abuse his power? Aren’t these possibilities? **No, that isn’t what I’m saying. I’m saying that again, objectively, the Pope acting as Supreme Legislator is all we have to go on. We can’t say,“Well, obviously the Archbishop isn’t excommunicate.” **

This isn’t a question of power. The Pope has the power to do a number of things. This has to do with the matter of Truth and Justice as well as the theological realities present. And how do you objectively judge that? Who has the capacity to do so, given that there is a ruling by the Pope? Only another pope.

It’s reasonable to conclude that Cardinal Kaspar does not hold the Catholic faith when you consider his statements and writings. He’s a heretic according to the facts. Until a Pope declares him a heretic he won’t be considered one canonically.

In other words, he wore a yellow hat and later switched to a green hat. And until the Pope tells us he’s wearing a green hat
no one is allowed to admit the truth that he’s wearing a green hat. We all have to pretend that he’s wearing a yellow hat.

The trouble is when the Pope is publicly saying he’s wearing a yellow hat when it’s obviously green.

The same is true with LeFebvre. The Pope said he’ s excommunicated himself for wearing a green hat when LeFebvre isn’t even wearing a hat.

The books might record that LeFebvre wore a green hat because the Pope bullied it into the records. But the records don’t speak the truth.

**I’ve no idea why the Holy Father let’s Cardinal Kasper do what he does or say what he does. I simply know that John Paul II clearly stated in his MP Ecclesia Dei that the Archbishop and the four ordinands excommunicated THEMSLEVES (ie, through their own action, not via decree. The pope simply confirmed it). And the records DO speak the truth in this: Lefebreve was about to get in large part what he asked for, he signed an agreement which he reneged on. **

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Maybe. Maybe not. How would you determine that?
Would you have opposed St. Paul at the time even though he was proven to be right?

**How was he proven right? By Peter’s confirmation of his being right, the only way to objectively have proved that he was right. **

Our Saints are living. We have St. Paul. And we have the tradition of St. Paul (who didn’t know he was “St” Paul at the time) and it’s handed down to us in the Church. “But if WE or an Angel of light preach a gospel different from the one we have given…” **The popes are guaranteed by promise of Jesus Christ Himself that they cannot lead the Church into error. The popes have not preached a different gospel. **

Why did St. Paul put that “WE” in there? I assume he meant we, since he knew Peter couldn’t lead the Church into error.

And…by saying that “we’d best listen to the Pope” if we don’t understand him and it harms our faith, we’d best listen to the Popes of before because we understand them. The current Popes have to reconcile what they say with what came before. Until they do speak with the understandable voice of Peter, we won’t correctly follow them. And that could be disastrous. Paul VI told us to follow the bishops that didn’t understand the Council. If they did, B16 wouldn’t be talking about the failed implementation of the Council.
**The popes cannot teach to the faithful or present to them anything that is contrary to the truth. I’ve no idea what you mean when you seem to imply that the post conciliar popes have taught contrary to their predecessors. I don’t believe that they have. They may have clarified or further explained, etc. (for example, the difference between “material” and “formal” heresy, but they have not contradicted a one, back to Peter. **

So, until they straighten it all out and heal the rupture of discontinuity and clearly show the continuity. I’ll stick with the tried and true Trent Catechism, Thomas Aquinas, and the clear teaching of the Popes about the Catholic Faith. And I’ll be wary of reading JPII’s “personal reflections” in his encyclicals and I won’t necessarily go along with B16’s book on Jesus if it seems to contradict or affects what I’ve learned from the Magisterial teachings of the Church about our Divine Lord and Savior. Then you’ve followed the path of countless other poor souls, out of the boat, whether formally or no.

 

[AlexV]

“The popes cannot teach to the faithful or PRESENT to them anything that is contrary to the truth.”

Alexander VI certainly “presented” quite a bit to the faithful that was contrary to the truth.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

“The popes cannot teach to the faithful or PRESENT to them anything that is contrary to the truth.”

Alexander VI certainly “presented” quite a bit to the faithful that was contrary to the truth.

Yes, and of course, the parrallels between the Borgia pope and the post-VII popes is OBVIOUS.

 

[AlexV]

The PRINCIPLE remains the same. That’s important to remember.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The PRINCIPLE remains the same. That’s important to remember.

No, the principle isn’t the same. Neither taught error and one was a horrendous moral example

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Maybe. Maybe not. How would you determine that?
Would you have opposed St. Paul at the time even though he was proven to be right?

And incidentally, Gerard, I should make plain that I do not regard myself as a Saint Paul.

 

[AlexV]

One did indeed teach error. We teach best, in some ways, by example.