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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 68

Author Topic: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II  (Read 46110 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 #85 on: June 17, 2022, 07:27:13 AM »
Quote from: SeanJohnson on June 17, 2022, 06:40:33 AM
Vigano explains....
HE explained it very well, thanks for this Sean!
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II
« Reply #86 on: June 17, 2022, 07:59:32 AM »
Quote from: DecemRationis on June 17, 2022, 06:13:15 AM

The Lad crowd contends that Stubborn, Pax, Sean, me and others make Holy Church into a whore by having her produce the errors of the Conciliar Church: but they don't do that. They only do that if the Lad crowd's view of indefectibility and the authority of a Magisterium of a true pope and the bishops in union with him is the true one.  Is it? Let's see.

This notion regarding the indefectibility and holiness of the Catholic Church are not something I concocted.  As NOW pointed out, it's a view shared not only by SVs but also by conservative NOs (these two differ on the minor, i.e. whether V2 and the NOM are actually bad).

I could fill a 500-page book from the Popes, Fathers, Doctors, and pre-Vatican II theologians (even post-Vatican II "theologians") who all unanimously agree that overall the Magisterium is free from and unstained by error and cannot lead souls to hell, that it's infallibly SAFE even when it doesn't meet the strict notion of infallibility.

Msgr. Fenton wrote an entire article on the subject, and dare say that he's better qualified to know than the likes of "Stuborn, Pax, Sean, and [DecemRationis]".

You falsely (mendaciously?) characterize this as some kind of innovation, where in point of fact R&R is the innovation.  But, then, it's not an innovation in the sense that this notion that the current living Magisterium can become corrupt and depart from the Deposit of Revelation is NEARLY IDENTICAL to the propositions of the Protestants that were anathematized at Trent.  I'll take some time today or this weekend to find them.  This is almost verbatim what the Prots claimed, that the Church had gone off the rails from the Revealed Religion ... the only difference being that they only believe in a single source of Revelation (Sacred Scripture) while the R&R Trads believe in two of them.

Your articulation of "R&R" labors under the anathemas of Trent.  You lie when attempting to characterize our position as some kind of innovation.

PS -- Archbishop did NOT hold the same view of "R&R" that this crowd here holds.  He clearly articulated the same thing I did, that the Holy Spirit guides the papacy and cannot be corrupted.  At one point I transcribed here on CI a talk he gave.  So then he wonders how all this could have happened.  He mulls over some theories, such as that Paul VI was being drugged, etc.  He rejected these as unlikely and then in the end stated that SVism is in fact possible.  I also think one could argue that perhaps Montini was being blackmailed due to sodomy (not a scenario raised by the Archbishop).  I actually don't care if someone wants to claim that Montini was replaced by a double.  I'll accept any theory (even if I disagree) that doesn't jettison the sacred doctrine that the Catholic Church cannot ever become as corrupt as these R&R types claim it has.  I'll find my transcription of the speech given by Archbishop Lefebvre and will present it.  That's actually one of the things that persuaded Father Ronald Ringrose to become SV.  Whenever one starts digging into Traditional teaching regarding the papacy and ecclesiology, one ends up either returning to the Conciliar Church or in SVism ... because the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the matter is crystal clear.  It's only this group of neo-R&R represented here by Decem, Stubborn, Pax, et al. who dare to promote this heretical teaching as Catholic truth.
Logged

Offline 2Vermont

Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II
« Reply #87 on: June 17, 2022, 08:16:36 AM »
Quote from: SeanJohnson on June 17, 2022, 06:40:33 AM
Vigano explains:

”Yet this postulate assumes that the text we are going to analyze is a specific act of the Magisterium, with its degree of authority clearly expressed in the canonical forms envisaged. And this is precisely where the deception lies, this is where the trap is set. For the Innovators maliciously managed to put the label “Sacrosanct Ecuмenical Council” on their ideological manifesto, just as, at a local level, the Jansenists who maneuvered the Synod of Pistoia had managed to cloak with authority their heretical theses, which were later condemned by Pius VI.[3]

On the one hand, Catholics look at the form of the Council and consider its acts to be an expression of the Magisterium. Consequently, they seek to read its substance, which is clearly ambiguous or even erroneous, in keeping with the analogy of faith, out of that love and veneration that all Catholics have towards Holy Mother Church. They cannot comprehend that the Pastors have been so naïve as to impose on them an adulteration of the Faith, but at the same time they understand the rupture with Tradition and try to explain this contradiction.

The modernist, on the other hand, looks at the substance of the revolutionary message he means to convey, and in order to endow it with an authoritativeness that it does not and should not have, he “magisterializes” it through the form of the Council, by having it published in the form of official acts. He knows well that he is forcing it, but he uses the authority of the Church – which under normal conditions he despises and rejects – to make it practically impossible to condemn those errors, which have been ratified by no less than the majority of the Synod Fathers. The instrumental use of authority for purposes opposed to those that legitimize it is a cunning ploy: on the one hand, it guarantees a sort of immunity, a “canonical shield” for doctrines that are heterodox or close to heresy; on the other hand, it allows sanctions to be imposed on those who denounce these deviations, by virtue of a formal respect for canonical norms.”

https://onepeterfive.com/archbishop-vigano-is-vatican-ii-untouchable/
Vigano compares Vatican II to the Synod of Pistoia.  Did both have the approbation of the sitting/present pope?
Logged

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II
« Reply #88 on: June 17, 2022, 08:27:35 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on June 17, 2022, 07:59:32 AM

Your articulation of "R&R" labors under the anathemas of Trent.  You lie when attempting to characterize our position as some kind of innovation.


Lad,

I question your reading skills. Contrary to your claim that I'm characterizing your position "as some kind of innovation," I said they were "the prevailing notions of indefectibilty and the ordinary magisterium's capabilities and capacities in its ordinary teaching which were in vogue prior to Vatican II." I did say that those views "don't adequately address the problem," but I'm clearly not claiming you're engaging in "innovation" when you defend a view "in vogue prior to Vatican II." Let me be clear for you: you didn't make up the view. The theologians post-Vatican I filled volumes up with it. As Stubborn noted, it doesn't address the "conundrum," and fails miserably.

As does the view that the Holy Ghost abandoned the Church after the conclave that ultimately selected John XXIII: you claim His protections failed the Church since, hey, Siri resigned, and "it's on them": let the world be deceived into error by the very institution established to prevent that  - as long as that view of "indefectibililty" held by Lad and those theologians prior to Vatican II maintains its purity. 

Some of us don't buy that, and have a better understanding, without rejecting the pope, Tradition, Scripture or the Catholic Church - just your view of the Church. Again, I grant that that view was in "vogue" prior to Vatican II . . . it's largely what helped get us here. 

I see you totally fail to address my contention that you hold the same ordinary Magisterium that is incapable of teaching error to the universal church as to indefectibility somehow leading the world astray as to the possibilities of justification through baptism of desire. 

That's a big inconsistency and a problem for your position.

DR





Logged

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II
« Reply #89 on: June 17, 2022, 08:30:57 AM »
Quote from: SeanJohnson on June 17, 2022, 06:40:33 AM
Vigano explains:

”Yet this postulate assumes that the text we are going to analyze is a specific act of the Magisterium, with its degree of authority clearly expressed in the canonical forms envisaged. And this is precisely where the deception lies, this is where the trap is set. For the Innovators maliciously managed to put the label “Sacrosanct Ecuмenical Council” on their ideological manifesto, just as, at a local level, the Jansenists who maneuvered the Synod of Pistoia had managed to cloak with authority their heretical theses, which were later condemned by Pius VI.[3]

On the one hand, Catholics look at the form of the Council and consider its acts to be an expression of the Magisterium. Consequently, they seek to read its substance, which is clearly ambiguous or even erroneous, in keeping with the analogy of faith, out of that love and veneration that all Catholics have towards Holy Mother Church. They cannot comprehend that the Pastors have been so naïve as to impose on them an adulteration of the Faith, but at the same time they understand the rupture with Tradition and try to explain this contradiction.

The modernist, on the other hand, looks at the substance of the revolutionary message he means to convey, and in order to endow it with an authoritativeness that it does not and should not have, he “magisterializes” it through the form of the Council, by having it published in the form of official acts. He knows well that he is forcing it, but he uses the authority of the Church – which under normal conditions he despises and rejects – to make it practically impossible to condemn those errors, which have been ratified by no less than the majority of the Synod Fathers. The instrumental use of authority for purposes opposed to those that legitimize it is a cunning ploy: on the one hand, it guarantees a sort of immunity, a “canonical shield” for doctrines that are heterodox or close to heresy; on the other hand, it allows sanctions to be imposed on those who denounce these deviations, by virtue of a formal respect for canonical norms.”

https://onepeterfive.com/archbishop-vigano-is-vatican-ii-untouchable/


Sean,


I agree with Vigano as to all of this. But he doesn't address what Stubborn called "the conundrum." Btw, nice touch, Stubborn; I'll start saying "the Conundrum" from now on.

Let him be as plain as Stubborn, you, Pax are. But he's not being as plain, while, yes, being accurate in his descriptions. He's skirting the Conundrum.

DR

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 68
« previous next »