Was the Oath Against Modernism violated?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ajpirc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cristiano said:
Who says that the council was not infallible? I see that the Church did not see the need to declare it infallible and that makes a lot of sense to me. Here I am not talking about religion I am just talking about plain formal logic. If I do not declare that my dog is a male, does that make it a female? No, it simply leaves the possibility that it could be either male or female and you just do not know.QUOTE]

Pope Paul says that the Council was not infallible. I gave you a quote earlier. Pope Paul said it over and over again. Is the Pope not the final authority on Earth? He is the vet who is telling you that the dog is a male. When you hear the vet tell you that the dog is a male, do you go against his/her years of experience by correcting them and saying it’s a female? There is no other option when the vet tells you that it’s a male.
Click to expand...
 
ajpirc said:
Cristiano;8001824:
Who says that the council was not infallible? I see that the Church did not see the need to declare it infallible and that makes a lot of sense to me. Here I am not talking about religion I am just talking about plain formal logic. If I do not declare that my dog is a male, does that make it a female? No, it simply leaves the possibility that it could be either male or female and you just do not know.QUOTE]

Pope Paul says that the Council was not infallible. I gave you a quote earlier. Pope Paul said it over and over again. Is the Pope not the final authority on Earth? He is the vet who is telling you that the dog is a male. When you hear the vet tell you that the dog is a male, do you go against his/her years of experience by correcting them and saying it’s a female? There is no other option when the vet tells you that it’s a male.
Click to expand...
Let’s not equate two things that are not equal. Vatican II did not define dogma. Therefore, it made no infallible decrees. Pope Paul was speaking about this fact.

However, Vatican II discussed many infallible doctrines and built on them. They were infallible before Vatican II and continue to be so.

The authority of a Council is not diminished in any way, because it does not define dogmas. Catholicism is bigger than dogmas. There is a great deal that has to be discussed in the Church, not just dogmas. The Council discussed those other subjects.

Finally, not infallible does not mean that it is in error or that it teaches error. Nor does it mean that you and I have the authority to tear it apart. We have no authority. We do what the Council says we must do. Authority does not have to speak infallibly to have rights. Its rights come from the law giver, not from infallibility. Christ gives the bishops their authority, even though they may not be speaking infallibly. As long as they are not commanding sin, they have the right to expect assent.

This was made very clear by Francis of Assisi in one of his writings in 1212 when he said that if authority commands that which we believe to be in error and that which it commands is not a sin, then we are bound to obey, because what pleases God is not that we be right, but that we be obedient as Christ was obedient.

We need to put this whole excuse to rest that the Council and the bishops have no right to expect assent, because they did not speak infallibly, dogmatically or because in our opinion they are mistaken. If they are not asking you to commit a sin, then there is not legitimate excuse. The Church, not the individual, must define a sin.

Teresa of Avila taught something that I have found very helpful in my life.

**We are preparing ourselves for the time, which will come very soon, when we shall find ourselves at the end of our journey and shall be drinking of living water from the fountain I have described. Unless we make a total surrender of our will to the Lord, and put ourselves in His hands so that He may do in all things what is best for us in accordance with His will, He will never allow us to drink of it. **

Therefore, I avoid turning my relationship with the Church, the Council and the hierarchy into a battle of wills. If Teresa and Francis are right and we have no reason to doubt them, real holiness is achieved when we surrender our will to legitimate authority, not when we’re right. None of the masters of Christian Spirituality has ever said that one has to be right to be virtuous. They have all said that one has to be obedient and at times submissive. I have always said, “Pilate was not right, but Christ submitted and in doing so he won our souls back.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
 
ajpirc said:
Pope Paul says that the Council was not infallible.
Click to expand...
No, he only said that it avoided “proclaiming, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas.” You probably didn’t read the second half of that sentence, though. Here’s my translation from the Italian:
. . . but nevertheless it has indued its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium, an ordinary magisterium so obviously authentic real that it must be accepted with docility and sincerity by all the faithful, according to Council’s intention regarding the nature and scope of each document.
So one can cherry-pick half-sentences all one likes, but Pope Paul was clearly not saying what some would like to think – that this Ecumenical Council was in fact just a conference of schmoes, which may easily have screwed up completely and can be entirely ignored. To the contrary, the Council was exercising the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, and even if avoided pronouncil new dogmata, what it said about existing issues of dogma, with as the Mass and the nature of the College of Bishops, requires assent.
 
Uh, corrigenda:

“so obviously authentic -]real/-] that it . . .”

“issues of dogma, -]with/-] such as the Mass . . .”
 
JReducation said:
This claim is getting old. There have been four popes since Vatican II, not counting Bl. John XXIII. None of them have found error in the Council. Either, we have had four idiots sitting on the Chair of Peter or there is no error in the teaching of the Council, only error in the interpretation given by right and left.

At some point, we have to accept that popes understand the faith better than we do. Unless a pope speaks heresy, then his statements and actions are worthy of our trust.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
How many of those Popes were at Vatican II? All of them. How many of them were Bishops that participated? Three of them, as Pope Benedict XVI was only a priest. Have any of those four Popes said that it was infallible? Beats me; all I know is that Pope Paul VI said it wasn’t infallible and that it was actually as if Vatican II were the Church destroying Herself. I don’t know if Pope John Paul I said anything during his pontificate or even at all about it’s infallibility. I think Pope John Paul II said it was only a pastoral Council giving it no doctrinal authority. And I don’t know if he’s said anything on it’s infallibility, but I know that Pope Benedict XVI said it was a waste of time when he was a Cardinal.

If you know any times that one of these popes has said the Second Vatican Council was infallible, I would like to hear them. 👍
 
ajpirc said:
How many of those Popes were at Vatican II? All of them. How many of them were Bishops that participated? Three of them, as Pope Benedict XVI was only a priest. Have any of those four Popes said that it was infallible? Beats me; all I know is that Pope Paul VI said it wasn’t infallible and that it was actually as if Vatican II were the Church destroying Herself. I don’t know if Pope John Paul I said anything during his pontificate or even at all about it’s infallibility. I think Pope John Paul II said it was only a pastoral Council giving it no doctrinal authority. And I don’t know if he’s said anything on it’s infallibility, but I know that Pope Benedict XVI said it was a waste of time when he was a Cardinal.

If you know any times that one of these popes has said the Second Vatican Council was infallible, I would like to hear them. 👍
Click to expand...
Read posts 61 and 62

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
To add to what Brother JR said about the Vatican II not defining any doctrine. It didn’t need to, for unlike other councils it was called to settle any doctrinal dispute but to pave a way forward. Brothers and Sisters, the modern world era that has lasted 400 years or so is either dead or dying. The turbulence that surrounds us is either the chaos leading into the new era or the death throes of the old one. In any case I believe that these things did not spring from the council as some have suggested on these boards but rather the council arrived in the nick of time. Do not be afraid.
 
ajpirc said:
Not heretical. I just don’t believe it ended the way Pope John and Pope Paul wanted it to.
Click to expand...
That is frequently the way God works. In the long run, it is the Holy Spirit that guides the Church. The pope is the prime instrument, but he is still an instrument in the hands of the Master.
 
laszlo said:
This, regardless who said it, is the temptation of the rationalism/modernism which teaches that the deposit of faith staring with the scriptures developed through the prayer of the community, so

Lex orandi ==> Lex credendi

This is lie, or at least error coming from ignorantia crassa. We got the revelation in the New Testament from Christ, and that revelation is he base of our faith, not the Liturgy. The sequence is:

Lex credendi ==> Lex orandi

In other hand it is the temptation of the Satan that we can grasp the whole truth, we are like God, know good and evil. We are particular, limited beings, and we can grasp only morsels from the truth. Some things are eternal (the Creed, the ten commandments, the seven sacrament) but the Ecclesiology (which is in the melting pot of the ‘dogmas’ today, is not about the eternal, unchangeable except the One, Saint Catholic and Apostolic principle.

The pre Vatican Church emphasized the role of the clergy and almost entirely excluded the active participation of the laity. Lay people had the right to receive sacraments (Confession and Eucharist onece a year) and that is it. The liturgical consequence of it is the TLM, which in its historical form is exclusivelly the matter of the clergy. The laypeople are bystandars, maybe listeners for performances of music during the time of the mass.

St Pius X understood that this is not enough, he started the lay participation. The dogmatical basis was and is that the Church is Christ and the people, all of them with different mutually dependent roles, not the clergy exclusively. This lead to the Sacrosanctum Concilium and logically to the 1970 Mass. The fact that there are abuses do not change this change on the emphasis.
Click to expand...
A train wreck, but it’s passionate, I’ll give you that.

Do you even know what modernism is ?
 
JReducation said:
This was made very clear by Francis of Assisi in one of his writings in 1212 when he said that if authority commands that which we believe to be in error and that which it commands is not a sin, then we are bound to obey, because what pleases God is not that we be right, but that we be obedient as Christ was obedient.

We need to put this whole excuse to rest that the Council and the bishops have no right to expect assent, because they did not speak infallibly, dogmatically or because in our opinion they are mistaken. If they are not asking you to commit a sin, then there is not legitimate excuse. The Church, not the individual, must define a sin.

Teresa of Avila taught something that I have found very helpful in my life.

**We are preparing ourselves for the time, which will come very soon, when we shall find ourselves at the end of our journey and shall be drinking of living water from the fountain I have described. Unless we make a total surrender of our will to the Lord, and put ourselves in His hands so that He may do in all things what is best for us in accordance with His will, He will never allow us to drink of it. **

Therefore, I avoid turning my relationship with the Church, the Council and the hierarchy into a battle of wills. If Teresa and Francis are right and we have no reason to doubt them, real holiness is achieved when we surrender our will to legitimate authority, not when we’re right. None of the masters of Christian Spirituality has ever said that one has to be right to be virtuous. They have all said that one has to be obedient and at times submissive. I have always said, “Pilate was not right, but Christ submitted and in doing so he won our souls back.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
No truer words…obedience, obedience, obedience.

Coupled with humility, humility, humility.

👍👍👍
 
pnewton said:
That is frequently the way God works. In the long run, it is the Holy Spirit that guides the Church. The pope is the prime instrument, but he is still an instrument in the hands of the Master.
Click to expand...
PNEWTON

What’s with the car picture? Did I miss something??
 
Well heck, the church got a bunch of non-infallible things in the canon laws. Even rubrics of Mass are not infallible.

If we are free to dissent authority and say, “I’m not bound by those pronouncements not explicitly pronounced infallible,” to be consistent, one should have right to dissent about tons of things.

“Father, you are not suppose to wear your alb over your chasuble.”
“I understand, but that rule is not explicitly pronounced as an infallible statement.”
 
Alfonsus said:
Well heck, the church got a bunch of non-infallible things in the canon laws. Even rubrics of Mass are not infallible.

If we are free to dissent authority and say, “I’m not bound by those pronouncements not explicitly pronounced infallible,” to be consistent, one should have right to dissent about tons of things.

“Father, you are not suppose to wear your alb over your chasuble.”
“I understand, but that rule is not explicitly pronounced as an infallible statement.”
Click to expand...
Wow, I hadn’t thought of it that way. That was short, simple and understandable. I think I agree.

I just found an part of Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Satis cognitum:

“In this same sense He says: “Whatsoever thou shall bind upon earth it shall be bound also in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth it shall be loosed also in Heaven.” This metaphorical expression of binding and loosing indicates the power of making laws, of judging and of punishing; and the power is said to be of such amplitude and force that God will ratify whatever is decreed by it.”

If the documents aren’t infallible but Pope Paul VI had bound them on all Catholics, so too these documents have been bound by God in heaven. So can a future Pope loose these documents off of Catholics because the’re not infallible?
 
What Second Vatican Council decree called for the things which most annoy traditonalists e.g. all-vernacular Mass, re-ordered sanctuaries, modern hymns, lay lectors, etc?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top