Vatican II

[mattheus09]

I agree with you totally. I am just saying that if, lets say a person wants the church to get rid of the Novus Ordo, that person can still be a good and faithful Catholic. However, that person is still required to attend the Novus Ordo if no approved TLM is available. No Catholic has the right to not follow disciplines that are bound upon them, but they may disagree with them. I was NOT advocating for people to not follow disciplines.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Are you aware that Paul V (1605-1621) allowed the vernacular Mass in China?

Paul VI, by ratifying Vatican II, allowed some vernacular. Paul VI in 1975 allowed all vernacular. He’s the pope, the supreme legislator of the Church. Like Paul V, he can allow vernacular Mass in accordance with his plenary authority to govern the Church, distinct from the authority of a general council.

On December 4, 1963, Pope Paul VI promulgated Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. The document commands that “the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” It furthermore adds:But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. (emphasis added) This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants (SC, 36.2). Vatican II made provisions that the “limits” could be extended. They were, according to the Supreme Legislator, the Roman Pontiff, when he promulgated the second edition as the *editio typica *(1975):Since no Catholic would now deny the lawfulness and efficacy of a sacred rite celebrated in Latin, the Council was able to acknowledge that “the use of the mother tongue frequently may be of great advantage to the people” and gave permission for its use. The enthusiasm in response to this decision was so great that, under the leadership of the bishops and the Apostolic See, it has resulted in the permission for all liturgical celebrations in which the faithful participate to be in the vernacular for the sake of a better comprehension of the mystery being celebrated. Permission to use the vernacular, then, was extended by the Roman Pontiff.

Nonetheless, we still chant very often in Latin in my parish and throughout the diocese.

Weird that the Pope would allow vernacular Mass in China first. Isn’t it true that China was almost converted to Catholicism but the Jesuits refused to accept some linguistic terms that they used?

 

[ctos]

Yes…you can find them here.

No, I mean a list of teachings that are supposedly different: when people speak of ‘the teachings of Vatican II’, what is new? What doctrines have been clarified, for example?

 

[gorman64]

But again, you cant say the Pope is a heretic and the Church is no longer Catholic without blaspheming.

Of course, no one is saying that the Catholic Church is not Catholic…they are saying the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church.

St. Robert Bellarmine’s pope-heretic thesis was not blasphemous was it?

 

[Rykell]

Gorman64:

St. Robert Bellarmine’s pope-heretic thesis was not blasphemous was it?

This was refuted here:

St. Robert is NOT declaring that the TAUGHT CHURCH are free to commit criminal acts contrary to Catholic Canon Law and approved ecclesiastical discipline of the Catholic Church (which can never be harmful or dangerous to the faithful according to Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei), or disobedience to the decisions of Ecumenical Councils ratified by the Roman Pontiff, or the Constitutions, Declarations, Decrees, and disciplinary norms promulgated as an Acta Apostolicae Sedis by the Roman Pontiff.

The discussion in this thread focused on a false and deliberate attempt to distort the Saint’s words, by taking them out of context. Sad to say, the people who frequent these websites do not know the correct framing of his words and remain misinformed.

Nevertheless, stretching the assumption that he MAY have intended this meaning, St. Robert is NOT a pope invested with authority, and our allegiance and obedience is not to a Saint, but to the Magisterium.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…St. Robert Bellarmine’s pope-heretic thesis was not blasphemous was it?

Neither was it doctrine, but speculative theology. The problem with the thesis is that it lacks canonical norms for adjudicating that the pope is heretic. It relies upon self-judgment by the heretical pope, or the judgment of a successor pope. When either Pope Benedict XVI delares prior popes heretical, or his successor does so, then St. Robert’s hypothetical will have (for the first time in the history of Christianity) a practical example to help theologians and canonists understand how the juridic process for St. Robert’s hypothesis is supposed to take place. Until then, we have no historical precident or lawful canonical norms to determine if a pope is a formal heretic other than a declaration from a pope.

 

[GerardP]

Correct. But he must still obey lawful disciplinary norms, whether he agrees with them or not.

In Catholic moral theology, the case of “unjust excommunication” is discussed. In such instances, the victim of unjust excommunication did not in fact objectively commit the crime for which he has been penalized. However, if he were to disregard the subsequent lawful and valid judicial decree, he would indeed then commit a mortal sin. He is called to obey the unjust yet lawful and valid decree, and by doing so he acts meritoriously. He remains in a state of grace unless he willfully disobeys the lawful and valid (yet unjust) excommunication. He can certainly disagree with it, but must obey it.

The same is true of other licit and valid discplinary norms. Another such example is with annulment tribunals. The non-infallible tribunal may very well adjudicate to an objectively incorrect and unjust conclusion about the state of the prior marriage. However, the licit and valid (yet unjust) judgment of the external forum of the Church is to be obeyed nonetheless.

The only condition in which disobedience is permitted is if one’s superior acted outside their scope of authority or demanded something contrary to higher authority.

See more here with regard to unjust excommuncations: Catholic Encyclopedia - Excommunications

Don’t confuse a manifestly invalid excommunication with an unjust communication.

From the same citation in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

An excommunication is said to be null when it is invalid because of some intrinsic or essential defect, e.g. when the person inflicting it has no jurisdiction, when the motive of the excommunication is manifestly incorrect and inconsistent, or when the excommunication is essentially defective in form. Excommunication is said to be unjust when, though valid, it is wrongfully applied to a person really innocent but believed to be guilty. Here, of course, it is not a question of excommunication latæ sententiæ and in foro interno, but only of one imposed or declared by judicial sentence.** It is admitted by all that a null excommunication produces no effect whatever, and may be ignored without sin **(cap. ii, de const., in VI).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Don’t confuse a manifestly invalid excommunication with an unjust communication.

Where have I done so? I explicitly referred to a “valid judicial decree.” I’m quite aware of the difference between a valid yet unjust excommunication, and an invalid excommunication. I think you are shadow-boxing with somebody, but it ain’t me.

 

[gorman64]

Neither was it doctrine, but speculative theology.

Dave:

Are we allowed to hold the opinion of a Doctor of the Church?

Or have you somehow proved him wrong…so we may not hold his opinion?

Are the teachings of the theologians that are arrived at by spectulative theology not binding on us…I can’t believe you are saying this based on all of what I’ve read that you have posted here.

Gorman

 

[gorman64]

The problem with the thesis is…

Above is the commentary by “itsjustdave1988” on the thesis of a Saint and more importantly, a Doctor of the Church. Enough said, I think.

 

[GerardP]

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.

Sometimes inaction is the most effective action.

JPII could and most likely was incorrect in his assessment of the nature of LeFebvre’s actions.

The protocol agreement had wording in it that had decieved LeFebvre. It said a bishop would be considered. It didn’t promise a bishop which was done verbally. Add to that the apology for his actions to the Holly Father composed for LeFebvre to sign that was sprung on him right after the protocol was signed and he simply felt that it would be a lie for him to apologize for doing the right thing.

 

[GerardP]

Where have I done so? I explicitly referred to a “valid judicial decree.” I’m quite aware of the difference between a valid yet unjust excommunication, and an invalid excommunication. I think you are shadow-boxing with somebody, but it ain’t me.

I didn’t accuse you of doing so. I’m simply adding it for the benefit of readers who may confuse unjust excommunications and invalid ones.

Sorry if I didn’t make that more clear.

 

[GerardP]

Dear GerardP:

I don’t think the Church can issue a “policy” that has within it a doctrinal error. This contradicts the infallibility of Her ordinary magisterium which cannot give doctrinal error in any form…an error in practical judgment is quite possible…but not in the doctrinal component. She can propose nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals.

The modernist ecumenism is at odds with sound belief…is it not?

Yours in Christ,

Gorman

P.S.
Isn’t this false ecumenism taught in JPII’s encyclicals…in actions…and in the dogmatic constitutions of Vatican II?

I know it’s in the “official catechism”, the CCC.

Excellent points. The problem is ecumenism has never been officially defined by the Church. It’s sort of a catch-all describine a movement, not a truth. The Church can give permission to free the bishops to deal with the movement as they see fit according to Catholic teaching. But the Church can’t guarantee that the bishops will do this, or do the opposite either by error or malice.

That’s why modernism is such an onerous heresy. It has no complete doctrine. It’s spread out over many individuals with none of them completely agreeing on a set group of principals.

 

[gorman64]

The discussion in this thread focused on a false and deliberate attempt to distort the Saint’s words, by taking them out of context. Sad to say, the people who frequent these websites do not know the correct framing of his words and remain misinformed.

Nevertheless, even though he MAY have intended this meaning, St. Robert is NOT a pope invested with authority, and our allegiance and obedience is not to a Saint, but to the Magisterium.

Then show us the context. Don’t refer us to some thread that you think does this…do it right here. Show the entire context so we can see it.

We are free to hold the theological opinion of a Doctor of the Church.

 

[Brendan]

So how do you explain the legality of the ALL-vernacular Mass when the Vatican II documents SPECIFICALLY stated that Latin should be retained in the liturgy?

That is a perogative the is excusive to the Pope.

For example, Pope Adrian II authorized St. Cyril to translate both the Bible and the Liturgy into Slavonik.

To deny Pope Paul that same authority would be to encompass the heresy of Concillorism (that a Council may override or limit the authority of the Holy See), or claim that Pope Adrian II was likewise in error.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

No, I mean a list of teachings that are supposedly different: when people speak of ‘the teachings of Vatican II’, what is new? What doctrines have been clarified, for example?

oh…sorry, I misunderstood.

The usual suspects involve disagreements over “religious liberty” and “ecumenism.”

With regard to “religious liberty” you can read more about the issues from Fr. Brian Harrison’s many articles, here:

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Ils L’Ont Découronné Reviewed by Fr Brian Harrison OS (from Living Tradition, May 1989)

John Courtney Murray - A Reliable Interpreter of Dignitatis Humanae? (Part I) by Fr Brian Harrison OS (from Living Tradition, January 1991)

John Courtney Murray - A Reliable Interpreter of Dignitatis Humanae? (Part II) by Fr Brian Harrison OS (from Living Tradition, March 1991)

Marcel Lefebvre: Signatory to Dignitatis Humanae by Fr Brian Harrison OS. An article that shows that the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre signed Dignitatis Humanae despite subsequently denouncing it as irreconcilable with Catholic doctrine. (from Fidelity, March 1994)

Michael Davies, The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty Reviewed by Fr Brian Harrison OS (from Living Tradition, January 1993)

Pius IX, Vatican II and Religious Liberty reviewed by Fr Brian W Harrison OS (from Living Tradition, January 1987)

Religious Liberty: “Rights” versus “Tolerance” by Fr Brian W Harrison (from Living Tradition, March 1988)

 

[Rykell]

From the other thread:

As far the quote from Cardinal Bellarmine goes, the claim that His Eminence “taught” it is not just a little disingenuous.

Traditional Catholics who reject the New Mass and the post-Vatican II changes but still maintain that the post-Conciliar popes legitimately hold office -a group which includes the Society, Michael Davies, and many others- also see in this passage some sort of justification for recognizing someone as pope but rejecting his commands. The quote has been cited over and over to support these positions, in complete good faith, no doubt. Alas, it has been taken out of context and completely misapplied. In its original context, Bellarmine’s statement neither condemns the principle behind the sedevacantist position, nor justifies resisting laws promulgated by a validly-elected pope…

The passage cited is from a lengthy chapter Bellarmine devotes to refuting nine arguments advocating the position that the pope is subject to secular power (emperor, king, etc.) and an ecumenical council (the heresy of conciliarism). The general context, therefore, is a discussion of the power of the state vis-à-vis the pope…In its particular context, the oft-cited quote is part of Bellarmine’s refutation of the following argument:

Argument 7. Any person is permitted to kill the pope if he is unjustly attacked by him. Therefore, even more so is it permitted for kings or a council to depose the pope if he disturbs the state, or if he tries to kill souls by his bad example.

Bellarmine answers:
I respond by denying the second part of the argument. For to resist an attacker and defend one’s self, no authority is needed, nor is it necessary that he who is attacked be the judge and superior of him who attacks. Authority is required, however, to judge and punish.

It is only then that Bellarmine states:
Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior. (De Romano Pontifice, II.29.)

Bellarmine…is discussing the course of action which may legitimately be taken against a pope who upsets the political order or “kills souls by his bad example.” A king or a council may not depose such a pope, Bellarmine argues, because they are not his superior-but they may resist him.

 

[gorman64]

I agree. This is the sedevacantist argument…I hope you realise.

The question is whether we are concerned with the “pope” or other members of the “teaching apostolate” giving scandal or bad example…or are they promoting false and heretical doctrine (or ignoring the truths of the Faith). A pope can do the former…but not the latter.

 

[ctos]

oh…sorry, I misunderstood.

The usual suspects involve disagreements over “religious liberty” and “ecumenism.”

Thank you for the list of book reviews, I will look into the books. They are not necessarily authoritative sources. I don’t necessarily need such, but rather this: when someone says that we ‘must accept the teachings of Vatican II’, what are they saying? For example, can you use the terms “religious liberty” and “ecumenism” in two sentences, each of which elucidates what I am supposed to better understand now, that I would not have understood as well prior to the Council? It may seem as though I’m trying to bait you, but it’s not the case.

In general I find that the phrase ‘teachings of Vatican II’ gets used very frequently, without any real clarity as to what I am supposed to understand better now, compared to the understanding I would have had prior to the 1960s. Thank you for your time.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Gorman64,

First, I want to thank you for remaining very charitable to me throughout this discussion. I think we are attempting to look at the same or at least similar evidence but simply drawing different conclusions. My impression is that you are drawing your conclusions with a good faith effort toward seeking the truth, as I am, but we are obviously drawing different conclusions. Surely, charitable discussion liek these regarding theology can only help us better understand the truth.

Dave:
Are we allowed to hold the opinion of a Doctor of the Church?

Certainly, but one is also free to reject it. It is not doctrine. The opinion of St. Robert remains congruent with formal doctrine and the canonical norms of the current Roman Pontiff and the college of bishops in communion with him.

However, one should certainly hold to the authentic opinion of the Doctor, which did not, as you know, include that a layperson had the authority to judge a pope to be a manifest heretic.

This is what St. Robert wrote, what he explicitly called “opinion” (not doctrine):

A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction. (De Romano Pontifice, II.30).

This is congruent with the 1917 Code of Canon Laws and the 1983 Code of Canon Laws.

However, what St. Robert does not say is that John XXIII and the subsequent popes were manifest heretics. That opinion is not indorsed by any pope, saint, or doctor.

Moreover, when St. Robert says"manifest heretic" what does he mean? In what manner does he mean they “can be judged by the Church?”

While we have the right, indeed the obligation to the kind of fraternal correction which St. Paul gave to St. Peter or St. Catherine gave to Pope Gregory, if you check your Denzinger’s, I believe it states that the pope “will not be judged by anyone.” [cf. St. Nicholas i, AD 865, Denz 330-333, St. Leo X, AD 1053, Denz 353, Clement VI, AD 570g, ad 1351]. Surely St. Robert’s opinion must be understood in the context of the prior papal decrees that no one, not “by all the clergy, nor by religious, nor by the people will the judge be judged…"The first seat will not be judged by anyone” [Denz 330-333]

Consequently, I conclude that only a pope can judge himself a heretic, or be so judged by a successor pope. This is the only manner a pope has ever been condemned in Catholic history (eg. Honorius I, see more here).

John XXII, on his deathbed, submitted any of his erroneous teachings (alluding to his erroneous All Saint’s Day sermon) to the judgment of the Church and** his successor** determinationi Ecclesiae ac successorum nostrorum]. This is the proper manner in which a pope may be declared a manifest heretic, by a judgment in unity with that of the existing or successor pope.

Furthermore, under 1917 Canon Law, and the papal election laws under Pius XII:

“None of the cardinals may in any way, or by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the supreme pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor” Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (December 8, 1945), 34].

Active in this context means that such a cardinal may vote in the election, while passive means he himself can be elected.

Once the pope is elected, he is the valid pope. One then requires a condemnation or sentence pronounced by higher authority [cf. 1917 Code of Canon Laws, canon 2264], to remove him or any other heretic from validly governing as pope.