O
- Status
C
Cristiano
Guest
No! I would also caution you on how you proceed with your posts because your first post is bringing this whole thread into the fallacy of petitio principii (begging the question).
W
Will_S
Guest
This is the question being explored in the theological discussions between the SSPX and the Holy See.
The SSPX says “such and such seems to be contrary to the Faith as traditionally taught” and the Holy See explains how it’s not.
It will be very interesting to see the results of these talks in the future.
A
ajpirc
Guest
Did Vatican II introduce or define anything?
A
ajpirc
Guest
Not heretical. I just don’t believe it ended the way Pope John and Pope Paul wanted it to.
A
ajpirc
Guest
While still in this conversation, does anybody know the name of that document that Pope Paul VI issued that said Vativan II was infallible? I can"t remember what it was called.
Thanks
Thanks
C
Cristiano
Guest
What do you think? How many years did it last and how many people were involved? Just make sure that you also understand that introduction and definition are not automatically logic self inclusive systems.
C
Cristiano
Guest
Are you talking about “Quid dicere”?
A
ajpirc
Guest
I don’t think that was it. Is that an encylical?
K
khawk2
Guest
Oops. Correction. We are bound by all Catholic dogma. Period.
Sorry.
C
Cristiano
Guest
I must apologize but that was just a silly Latin/English joke that just came to my head when I read your question.
I was think to answer first with “Whatchamacallitus” but it would have been so obvious that I just chose to use the Latin “quid dicere” that could be translated in “what do you call it?” or “what are you talking about?”. It really cracked me up when I thought of it.
BTW Why do you think that Paul VI wrote a document talking about the infallibility of the council?
A
ajpirc
Guest
I even searched that name and couldn’t find anything.I must apologize but that was just a silly Latin/English joke that just came to my head when I read your question.
I was think to answer first with “Whatchamacallitus” but it would have been so obvious that I just chose to use the Latin “quid dicere” that could be translated in “what do you call it?” or “what are you talking about?”. It really cracked me up when I thought of it.
BTW Why do you think that Paul VI wrote a document talking about the infallibility of the council?
Is this a trick question? I’m just going to answer it anyway. Pope Paul was the Pope during most of and at the end of Vatican II so I thought maybe he’d write a document verifying that we must accept its infallible teachings.
A
At_Trent
Guest
"…The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way. "
Was the Oath Against Modernism violated ?
Was the Oath Against Modernism violated ?
A
At_Trent
Guest
Not all broke it
"In recent times, even in materialist North America, the growth of the Church was magnificent with the liturgy being kept in Latin. The attempts of the Protestants have failed, and Protestantism uses the vernacular. We ask again: Why the change, especially since changes in this matter involve many difficulties and great dangers? All of us here at the Council can recall the fundamental changes in the meaning of words in common use. Thus it follows that if the Sacred Liturgy were in the vernacular, the immutability of doctrine would be endangered.
The introduction of the vernacular should be separated from the action of the Mass. The Mass must remain as it is. Grave changes in the liturgy introduce grave changes in dogmata."
James Cardinal McIntyre addressing the Second Vatican Council.
"In recent times, even in materialist North America, the growth of the Church was magnificent with the liturgy being kept in Latin. The attempts of the Protestants have failed, and Protestantism uses the vernacular. We ask again: Why the change, especially since changes in this matter involve many difficulties and great dangers? All of us here at the Council can recall the fundamental changes in the meaning of words in common use. Thus it follows that if the Sacred Liturgy were in the vernacular, the immutability of doctrine would be endangered.
The introduction of the vernacular should be separated from the action of the Mass. The Mass must remain as it is. Grave changes in the liturgy introduce grave changes in dogmata."
James Cardinal McIntyre addressing the Second Vatican Council.
L
Lormar
Guest
AT, where did you get this from? And does anyone here know if there are books of the actual discussions that went on during the Council?
A
ajpirc
Guest
Cardinal Ottaviani was silenced during Vatican II for rejecting the liturgical reforms.
W
Will_S
Guest
No he didn’t. Actually he emphasized that the council was not for the purpose of defining doctrine and did not intend to make any dogmatic definitions.I even searched that name and couldn’t find anything.
Is this a trick question? I’m just going to answer it anyway. Pope Paul was the Pope during most of and at the end of Vatican II so I thought maybe he’d write a document verifying that we must accept its infallible teachings.
L
Lormar
Guest
Fellows, I think you all ought to read this article: chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1348309?eng=y
The times they are a changin’!
The times they are a changin’!
A
ajpirc
Guest
I also found some quotes that he said it was only a pastoral council, but I always thought there was a document that said it was an infallible Ecumenical Council. But I guess not.
But didn’t Pope Paul VI promulgate the documents and accept them as infallible?
J
JReducation
Guest
The answer is no. They did not violate the oath. What then Cardinal Ratzinger is saying is not that the heresies of modernism should be embrace. To say that would be a violation against the oath.
He is saying that many things were thrown under that umbrella that did not belong there and the Council tried to correct hat. One has to observe that he says that the Church adopted this or that. He is not singling out the encyclicals. The enclycals were fine. The intepretation that people gave to them and the things that people said were covered by the encyclicals was more than was intended. In her practices and policies, the Church went over and beyond what was intended. This had to be corrected.
He also points out in the same work that some popes went over and beyond what was necessary and that too can be corrected and should be. In other words, they made rules that were not properly executed or that no longer work. In either case, the rule has to be revisted.
To understand what he’s saying, one would have to study the documents in question, ecclesiology, philosophy, Canon Law, Church History, and several other branches of theology. Pope Benedict is a very Franciscan writer. One of the strengths or weaknesses of the Franciscan school, sometimes called Bonaventurian, is that it assumes that the reader knows the same things that the writer does. They don’t give you much background information to help you understand. Also, Bonaventure took lessons from Augustine who simply believed that nothing needed explaining once it was handed down by authority. If you loved enough, you would trust and obey. That’s where Pope Benedict comes from and why his writings sometimes cause such a stir and then he has to go back and write a clarification. Look at what happened with SP. The clarification was needed, because Pope Benedict never expected so many lay people to read SP. He was writing it for bishops and religious superiors all of whom have doctorates in theology or law, sometimes both.
One has to be very theologically knowledgeable to try to interpret Pope Benedict or use a commentary.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status