I do not plan on using forums much. They are generally not useful for me.

But, there is an issue I would like to address in part. That is of Morality, the the goodness or evil of acts which are from our reason and will ("human acts"). Immoral acts are sins, and sins separate one from God, and that is something which I usually focus on.

Quote

Rosarium,
If I remember correctly, you accept the New Mass, quite vigorously defend the indult, and accept that Vat. 2 was a good council who's docuмents have been misinterpreted, these positions belie an implicit Modernism.

Rosarium's response does not deny this.

It's important to see where this person is coming from.

For the record, for those who care, the exchange was a lot longer than that, and it ended with this:

Rosarium,
I have my suspicions, but I should not have publicly labeled you a Modernist.
You have my apologies.

The (long and probably boring) thread is here (read it backwards for best results I think): http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=21541

For the record, I wrote this earlier about my background:

For the record, I was born into an SSPX parish, baptized there, was held by Bishop Williamson himself while I was an infant (before he was a bishop), and I grew up only in the TLM and I did not even know of the NO until I was a teenager. I exclusively attend the TLM by choice. All the materials I learned doctrine and morals from are pre-Vatican II and I do not think I have ever owned a book on Faith or morals from after that time.

But, I have also written a lot on the public Internet on morality and doctrine and any errors I have should be evident in them.

While I accept the authority of the Church, I also accept:

* Vatican II did not define any new doctrines nor did add anything to them. Vatican II is not a source of doctrine.

* Vatican II did not set any new moral guidelines.

* Certain things which were changed because of Vatican II (developments after, for the most part) like rules on fasting and abstinence, holy days of obligation, etc are within the authority of the Church to change. We are usually free to do more if we choose (I for one usually fast from midnight before communion intentionally, because fasting three hours (and one hour) is something which would happen by accident as my habits would usually be consistent with that).

* I am not a bishop, priest, a parent, or a superior over anyone, and my obligations are different from those with authority.

The fact I do not spend time condemning and detracting others is not indicative of support of anyone. The world is full of sinners and evil acts, and I am well aware of that, and failure to make a condemnation of Vatican II, a particular Pope, and the like is not support of everything which can be linked to it. Vatican II was a disaster for the Church, what was written is not followed, its "spirit" is infectious and heretical most of the time, and the seemingly whole rejection of doctrine and moral teachings by so many indicates that there was something else at work.

However, it is not really my role to address this. How can I make statements about Vatican II with greater authority than Vatican II has? Since it does not address morality or doctrine, strict and total adherence to all moral and doctrines of the Church is seemingly the best and first (and maybe only) response necessary. If one gets caught up in politics and the sins of others, one will be distracted from what matters.

I do not create new doctrines or hold others to my opinions. If one claims the Pope is not the Pope, that Canon Law of the most recent revision is not binding, or that the rite promulgated by Rome is not a valid Mass, one cannot hold others to this. All the people in the past who felt that Rome has defected from the true Faith, and who separated themselves, are clearly shown to be in error, no matter how corrupt Rome was at the time. But even so, those who hold all the articles of Faith, and who are driven in good faith to believe certain material things are still Catholic and probably not guilty of sin for that so I cannot condemn others who may be in good faith holding positions that they do even if I hold them to be in error.

Any error in this regard would be only be sinful if I went against what I truly believed, and I do not act in that manner. It would be sinful to make imprudent and unjust accusations against me. If any doctrine I espouse is against the Faith, let it be demonstrated clearly.

And the moral of this post is a warning against calumny and using suspicions of error or influence of error as a basis for acting and accusation is imprudent. Those are sins, and those are more important for us than speculating on the dealings of the bishops and the disciplines prescribed by them. The bishops should do many things better, but for our own salvation, it is our acts which matter, not theirs.

People can think I may be unduly influenced by errors if they want. I can think others are probably unduly influenced by the passions of the flesh if I want (nearly everybody is). However, to make specific accusations and condemnations of individuals is not moral.

So, for those who accuse me of Modernism, or take a weird turn into attack trad-cred, keep in mind this moral warning, and of course, any standard which excludes the saints cannot be good and should be rejected.

Any errors found will happily be corrected if they are identified and I am informed of them. Condemnation without such evidence and rationality will be treated as sinful behavior, and I normally do not concern myself with the sins of others specifically like that.

The just shall correct me in mercy, and shall reprove me: but let not the oil of the sinner fatten my head. For my prayer also shall still be against the things with which they are well pleased:

Vatican II does cover doctrinal matters, yet Rosarium says it didn't try to make new doctrine or add to doctrine.  That is simply, patently false.

This person just happens to make false statements like that all the time.

Quote from: Rosarium

However, it is not really my role to address this. How can I make statements about Vatican II with greater authority than Vatican II has?

Catholics - even laypeople - have an obligation to speak out against evil. Authority plays no role in the matter.

Being outspoken against the Vatican, the Pope, and the bishops is not a Precept of the Church.

There were always bad bishops, some eras had more than others, but only a few saints are noted for confronting them, and they were almost always bishops themselves.

What good is it to have the example of the saints, the moral teachings of the Church, and the doctrines we have been given if we do not follow them, but replace them with our own will?

Vatican II, in itself, was a council. It resulted in several docuмents and had several other developments which followed. Any error or evil must be addressed specifically.

Or, one can take the intellectually and morally lax way and make vague accusations, broad condemnations, and not cite anything.

Judge this:

The greatest concern of the Ecuмenical Council is this: that he sacred
deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more
efficaciously. That doctrine embraces the whole of man, composed as he is of
body and soul. And, since he is a pilgrim on this earth, it commands him to
tend always toward heaven.

...

The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one
article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has
repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians,
and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.
 
For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and
tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and
preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent
and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of
the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a
formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the
authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through
the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought.
The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing,
and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that
must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary,
everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium
which is predominantly pastoral in character.

Being outspoken against the Vatican, the Pope, and the bishops is not a Precept of the Church.

You forget that several Saints throughout Church history did correct Bishops and even the Pope.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen became a bit... shall we say, "soft" in the 1960s compared to his ealier years, though one thing he said that was true was that it was up to the laypeople to make sure that their priests acted like priests and their bishops acted like bishops.

Quote from: Rosarium

Being outspoken against the Vatican, the Pope, and the bishops is not a Precept of the Church.

You forget that several Saints throughout Church history did correct Bishops and even the Pope.

I wrote this in my post:

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

Quote from: Rosarium

However, it is not really my role to address this. How can I make statements about Vatican II with greater authority than Vatican II has?

Catholics - even laypeople - have an obligation to speak out against evil. Authority plays no role in the matter.

Being outspoken against the Vatican, the Pope, and the bishops is not a Precept of the Church.

There were always bad bishops, some eras had more than others, but only a few saints are noted for confronting them, and they were almost always bishops themselves.

Emphasis added.

OP, it may be better for you to just "offer it up" when some debates get under your skin.  A new thread to chastise your debate opponents is not very humble.

There are not any debates. It is occasional input on discussion, and someone going offensive with calumny and accusations. In fact, I paid attention to this forum recently when I saw someone making statements about me in a thread (and I did not have any presence on this forum around that time at all).

Rosarium seems very self-indulgent.  And with a healthy dose of "humility" which is now very much in style.

I won't call Rosarium a modernist out of my own over abundance of charity and good will.

"seems". That is common. That is common. People have, it is evident, a very hard time reading and considering words which are used (in a text only interaction), and have to extrapolate more.

In other words, you were raised as a trad, and you've abandoned Tradition, but claim that you haven't.  

Many good posters (stevus magnus, dellery) have become exasperated with you, for good reason.

We've seen your MO over the years.

And all this false humility and apologies you make for yourself can't change what you are.

You're a neotrad.

Not "in other words". I used specific words, and those should be considered. Throwing out what I write and then addressing your imagination is hardly useful.

You and others still have not provided any evidence, and you have demonstrated what I was warning against. You even went for the trad-cred attack, something I already addressed.

It is futile...what I write is ignored completely and I am "reminded" of what I did in fact write in the first place. Forsaking the words I use, and addressing assumptions and feelings is common. You look at the person only.

The acts I warned against on this thread continue.

Sad to see Catholics forsake reason and virtue like this.

Rosarium,

You lack humility yet see yourself as humble.  

You engage in name calling, yet lecture others about their prudence.

You follow Vatican II, yet call yourself a Catholic?  The Vatican II adheree's are considered "Consilliarists".

Rosarium, what do you want us to make of you?  

Rosarium,

We already have a very strong group in the Catholic Church that is standing fast to the Catholic Faith and not passing judgement on the pope.  

It's called the SSPX.  They refuse to pass judgement on the Pope and they refuse to follow his bad edicts.  

* Vatican II did not define any new doctrines nor did add anything to them. Vatican II is not a source of doctrine.

Vatican II does cover doctrinal matters, yet Rosarium says it didn't try to make new doctrine or add to doctrine.  That is simply, patently false.

This person just happens to make false statements like that all the time.

I was taught the same as what she said. I think Fr. Hesse (RIP) said this in one of his talks as well and is why he used this point to prove the VII 'council' was no council. Perhaps it was not doctrine, but dogma he mentions? I have to find that recording.