Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 68

Author Topic: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II  (Read 46643 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II
« Reply #105 on: June 17, 2022, 02:34:16 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on June 17, 2022, 02:19:23 PM
It's a sign of his quasi-modernism, that the above definition rebukes +Fenton's explanations and slippery definitions concerning the Magisterium.  It also totally condemns V2.
Yes, well said. The excellent papal quotes that DL posted and the great quotes posted by Sean agree 100% with PPIX's teaching as well. 
Logged

Offline SeanJohnson

Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II
« Reply #106 on: June 17, 2022, 02:38:25 PM »
Quote from: DecemRationis on June 17, 2022, 01:54:14 PM
Problem with this, Sean, is it doesn't confront the view of what I've called the Lad group - that a valid ecuмenical council couldn't teach error like V2. That view, which you and I disagree with, is opposed your view; it doesn't recognize a form/substance distinction. If it's valid, it's protected from error; so that view goes. It was the nearly unanimous view prior to the Council.

I know you cited one work of one (I believe) pre-Vatican II theologian, but I haven't read that, and the opposing authority is overwhelming. That (Lad's view) was the view of the theologians and manualists.

So, as I said, that view must be confronted head on as wrong, or else concede to the Sede argument. I can't concede to the Sede argument because a usurpation of the hierarchy to teach error and even heresy makes a mockery of the very protection of the Church that the Sedes say is afforded the Church: what good is it if such a usurpation could take place?

So, I disagree, and say the prevalent indefectibility view is wrong. I don't see another option if I were to remain honest and rational, and avoid contradiction. And I believe that Catholic truth is that - honest, free of contradiction, and rational.

I wish Vigano would confront the Conundrum, and not dance around it.

I understand what you are saying, but to the extent that you are accurately describing Lad’s position, I would say, as a sedeprivationist, he’s being inconsistent in his position:

They skirt the sedevacantist snare by positing a pope, but one without any actual authority or jurisdiction (ie., a pope materially, but not formally).  In other words, a different kind of pope than any sort of pope described in the manuals, encyclicals, bulls, councils, or any magisterial teaching.

Vigano is saying pretty much the same thing regarding councils as Lad/SP’s are saying regarding the pope:

The form (materialiter) of an ecuмenical council is there, but the substance (formaliter) -traditional Catholic doctrine infallible via either the extra or ordinary magisterium- is missing:

Its a different kind of council in the same way SP’s posit a different and unheard of kind of pope.
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II
« Reply #107 on: June 17, 2022, 02:39:50 PM »
Quote
Problem with this, Sean, is it doesn't confront the view of what I've called the Lad group - that a valid ecuмenical council couldn't teach error like V2. That view, which you and I disagree with, is opposed your view; it doesn't recognize a form/substance distinction.
Right.  +Vigano's form/substance distinction is a good explanation.




Quote
If it's valid, it's protected from error; so that view goes. It was the nearly unanimous view prior to the Council.
The problem is a lack of definitions of terms.  ALL ecuмenical councils of the past had a valid form (ecuмenical assembly) and doctrinal substance (doctrinal weight).  So, logically, that's how an ecuмenical council was understood. 



The modernists, using their phariasical legalism to the ultimate degree, came along and said, "Well...just because a council is ecuмenical, doesn't mean it HAS to define doctrine.  Let's call an ecuмenical council together and create a new, non-doctrinal reason for doing so.  We'll call it a "pastoral" council, yeah.  People won't know what to do; it'll cause confusion, which is what we want.  Confusion = caution = we have time to act before they figure out what we're doing."


This technicality is correct.  There's nothing in canon law which requires an ecuмenical council to define doctrine.  Just because it happened 19/19 times in history doesn't mean doctrine is an essential part of such a council.  The Modernists exploited a loophole, as they always do.

Quote
I wish Vigano would confront the Conundrum, and not dance around it.
The condundrum is that people are assuming the "ecuмenical" aspect of the council is what makes it infallible.  No, prior ecuмenical councils were only infallible because they defined doctrine.  And thus, if you have an ecuмenical council which defines no doctrine, then it's not infallible.
Logged

Offline 2Vermont

Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II
« Reply #108 on: June 17, 2022, 02:57:32 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on June 17, 2022, 01:12:11 PM
In principle, sadly, these V2 papal claimants are more Catholic than many of the modern R&R.  This notion of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church has been the constant teaching of the Church, from the Fathers, Doctors, theologians, etc.  Montini is right.  Often the enemies of the faith know the principles of the faith better than Catholics.
It's easier to fool others that way!  
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II
« Reply #109 on: June 17, 2022, 03:18:04 PM »

Quote
This notion of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church has been the constant teaching of the Church, from the Fathers, Doctors, theologians, etc.  Montini is right.
It's a gross generalization that assumes many things, a) the orthodoxy of the pope/cardinals/bishops, b) a love of truth, God, and the Faith, and c) the will to spread the Gospel and save souls.  It also assumes the obvious...that heretics didn't enter the Church to prepare for the antichrist.


The fact of the antichrist and how it could happen and what would God allow, has always been a mystery.  The antichrist only rules for 3.5 years, with a public life before this of (guessing) 10-20 years.  So, round that to 25 years that the antichrist is known and "working".

We all know that this 25 years is unlike ANY period in history, both of the world and of the Church.  And for 2,000 years God has not allowed any similar events to occur, until the times of antichrist, which are unprecedented.

The point being, in the grand scheme of the Church, V2 has only been 60-70 years, which is a drop in the bucket of history.  If we are leading up to the UTTERLY UNIQUE times of antichrist, how can anyone say "God wouldn't allow x, y or z"?  Or, how can anyone say, "Well, this can't happen because it's never happened before?"  We KNOW that the end times will be unique.  We know that will be unprecedented.  To compare our times with prior times is silly and naive.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 68
« previous next »