Author Topic: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II (Read 39914 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #75 on:** June 16, 2022, 06:01:11 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on June 16, 2022, 05:45:04 PM

4. How does the Holy Ghost guide the church? By the pope's infallibility and Apostolic truths from Tradition and Scripture.
5. Is there any other way that the Holy Ghost can guide the Church? No, this is the only power the pope has for teaching.
6. Apart from Infaillibility, is there any other way for the pope to be protected from error? No.
Conclusion - A council cannot be infallible unless the pope uses infallibility.

4 is absolutely false and is nothing but your begging the question in favor of your conclusion. Your allegation (aka gratuitious assertion) that (apart from Scripture and Tradition), the Church is not guided by the Holy Spirit except in those of his judgements that meet the notes of infallibility ... is precisely what we're arguing about and you're simply begging the question. That's utterly ridiculous and at the very least savors of heresy. Perhaps 1% of the Magisterium in its entire history has met the notes of infallibility (that number is probably incredibly high). Your allegation that 99+% of the Magisterium can go corrupt and lead souls to hell is utter absurdity, and I would categorize it as at least implicitly heretical.

PS -- your conclusion doesn't follow at all from the 3 premises above it.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #76 on:** June 16, 2022, 06:06:59 PM »

Pax, explain what your mental and spiritual malfunction is (and I'm serious in asking this) where it's more important for you to save and salvage Bergoglio than it is to defend the honor and the holiness of Holy Mother Church? You basically characterize her as a whore in order to save Bergoglio. Extending that metaphor, you're claiming that she's like a wife who flirts with other men, kisses them passionately, and even engages in sɛҳuąƖ foreplay, but if she doesn't actually engage in penetrative copulation, she's free from the charge of adultery. Your limiting the holiness of the Church to "infallibility in the strict sense" is absolutely the same as if you were characterizing this woman as not guilty of adultery simply because she didn't engage in the final act. Meanwhile, the Popes have characterized the Church and her Magisterium as being without stain or blemish. That's like calling the aforementioned woman above without stain or blemish. But, yeah, oh wait, when the popes taught these things about the Church and the Magisterium, they weren't protected by the Holy Spirit, so they could have been just full of it. In fact, why bother even reading the non-infallible Magisterium? It's a flip of the coin as to whether it's even correct. Just e-mail Pax and Stubborn, though, and they can tell you whether it's actually Traditional or not. You make fools of yourself, and ... what's worse ... your view of the Church can hardly be excused of being outright heretical. Only the confusion of these days absolves you from heresy.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #77 on:** June 16, 2022, 06:37:52 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 16, 2022, 06:06:59 PM

your view of the Church can hardly be excused of being outright heretical. Only the confusion of these days absolves you from heresy.

I honestly don't really believe that anymore. There's limits to culpability here, especially once one takes it upon themselves to start promoting an obviously erroneous position that blasphemes Holy Mother Church... A "material heretic" is a Catholic in good faith who merely makes a mistake on Church dogma, but is open to correction. When you stray out of that position, the individual becomes culpable. This is what I've come to understand about why MHFM so openly refers to others has heretics. Language which the Church has traditionally used, yet has been usurped by more "ecuмenical" phrases like Modernist, pseudo-traditionalist, conservative, etc. out of human respect.

From the Popes and Magisterium (which some here think we can deny):

Quote

Pope St. Celestine I, Council of Ephesus, 431:
“… ALL HERETICS corrupt the true expressions of the Holy Spirit with their own evil minds and they draw down on their own heads an inextinguishable flame.”

Pope Innocent IV, First Council of Lyons, 1245:
“The civil law declares that those are to be regarded as heretics, and ought to be subject to the sentences issued against them, who even on slight evidence are found to have strayed from the judgment and path of the Catholic religion.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum #13:
"can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others."
[...]
"he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith."

Canon 1325.2: "After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one is] a heretic;"

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #78 on:** June 16, 2022, 06:42:50 PM »

Quote

Your allegation (aka gratuitious assertion) that (apart from Scripture and Tradition), the Church is not guided by the Holy Spirit except in those of his judgements that meet the notes of infallibility ... is precisely what we're arguing about and you're simply begging the question.

Let me turn around my statement and re-phrase it into a question:

Is any (or has any) church doctrine, truth, dogma EVER been based on anything OTHER than Tradition/Scripture? No, because the Faith is based on Divine Truth, which can only come from these 2 areas.

Please point to one truth/doctrine that is outside of these categories.

Quote

That's utterly ridiculous and at the very least savors of heresy.

It's not heresy at all.

Quote

Perhaps 1% of the Magisterium in its entire history has met the notes of infallibility (that number is probably incredibly high).

You're speaking of the solemn/ex-cathedra magisterium being 1% of history. The rest of the Magisterium (which is still infallible) is based on Tradition/Scripture. You are minimizing the infallible nature of Tradition and "constant teachings" of the Church Fathers, Saints, Doctors, etc. This is "that which has always been taught" and makes up a large, large majority of the Faith (i.e. the simple catechism).

Quote

Your allegation that 99+% of the Magisterium can go corrupt and lead souls to hell is utter absurdity, and I would categorize it as at least implicitly heretical.

I've never said any such thing nor implied it. You just jump to this conclusion because a) you never engage in a rational debate, b) you won't be patient enough to listen to an explanation.

Using your %s just for the sake of argument, I would break it down as follows:
1% of Church doctrine = infallible, solemn pronouncements by the pope in ecuмenical councils and dogmatic decrees
50% of Church doctrine = infallible and clearly taught in Scripture, using a literal reading, as the Church commands.
49% of Church doctrine = non-solemn oral teachings from the Apostles, unanimously agreed on by the Church Fathers, preached and agreed on in every age by the saints, popes, doctors, bishops, etc. This would be called the ordinary & universal magisterium (truths believed "everywhere, always and by all"). This is all still infallible teaching.

One must distinguish between the Ordinary/CURRENT magisterium (i.e. current hierarchy of the day) vs the ordinary and universal magisterium (i.e. constant teaching of the Church since the beginning of time).

The ordinary/CURRENT magisterium/hierarchy can err if a) the pope doesn't teach solemnly, b) they don't teach "that which has always been taught".

So, yes, the CURRENT magisterium/hierarchy can totally err and lead souls to hell because Church doctrine is ETERNAL and not current. V2 modernists have been arguing for a "living magisterium" so they can claim that the CURRENT magisterium/hierarchy is infallible, but that's heresy. Outside of papal solemn decrees, The CURRENT magisterium/hierarchy is only infallible when it agrees with the universal/constant/eternal truths of Tradition/Scripture.

There is nothing in Church history that says the Current magisterium/hierarchy is protected from error if they teach outside the parameters of solemn infallibility, infallible Tradition or infallible Scripture. These are the ONLY parameters that Christ gave the Church to be safe.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #79 on:** June 16, 2022, 07:07:24 PM »

Quote

Pax, explain what your mental and spiritual malfunction is (and I'm serious in asking this) where it's more important for you to save and salvage Bergoglio than it is to defend the honor and the holiness of Holy Mother Church?

Bergoglio's non-infallible errors/heresies/sins do not reflect on the holiness, indefectible nature or purity of the Church. That's the point. When Bergoglio isn't teaching authoritatively then he's simply a bishop who is using his fallible, human faculties to speak heretical, erroneous catholic words.

Quote

You basically characterize her as a whore in order to save Bergoglio.

Bergoglio has nothing to do with the V2 council which is what this thread is about. Bergoglio is a heretic, no doubt about that. V2 was still a fallible council; nothing about Bergoglio changes that.

I'm using church law, logic and common sense to show that even though God *seemingly* allowed V2 to proclaim error (but proclaiming something is not the same as a binding teaching), technically speaking, that is allowed by the Church's own rules because God only promised the Holy Ghost to protect the Church when She follows the rules that God laid out. If such rules aren't followed, then contradictions, errors and a crisis of Faith follow because the Modernists used "assumptions" of the laity to confuse them.

The laity "assumed" that V2 was like every other ecuмenical council. It wasn't.
The laity "assumed" they could trust V2 clerics. Most were orthodox, but the minority weren't and they controlled the voting.
The laity "assumed" that God would not allow evil clerics to promote ambiguous errors.
Etc, etc

But when you deep dive into the legal fine print of it all, you can see that what happened was *technically* allowed by God, mostly due to the laity of the time not being strong in their Faith, not standing up for Truth, not fighting for orthodoxy.

Quote

Extending that metaphor, you're claiming that she's like a wife who flirts with other men, kisses them passionately, and even engages in sɛҳuąƖ foreplay, but if she doesn't actually engage in penetrative copulation, she's free from the charge of adultery. Your limiting the holiness of the Church to "infallibility in the strict sense" is absolutely the same as if you were characterizing this woman as not guilty of adultery simply because she didn't engage in the final act.

The correct analogy would be that the wife did not do any of these things, but an imposter, dressed as the wife, did so and scandalized everyone. Our Lord never promised that the Church would be free from scandals or apparent contradictions or a crisis of Faith. Our Lord's own passion scandalized the Apostles (as He foretold) and His death was a *apparent* contradiction to His claim of being God, and it caused a crisis of Faith to most all. Our Lady at LaSallette said the Church would be "in eclipse" meaning hidden, but not gone. Meaning that darkness would *appear* to triumph, that error would *appear* to be taught, that doctrine would *appear* to change. But appearances or imposters do not change the truth. Scandals and contradictions do not sully the Church's holiness or purity. Just like an adulterous imposter does not make the wife guilty nor destroy the marriage.

Quote

Meanwhile, the Popes have characterized the Church and her Magisterium as being without stain or blemish.

There are fallible types of the magisterium, a fact you never admit.

Quote

That's like calling the aforementioned woman above without stain or blemish. But, yeah, oh wait, when the popes taught these things about the Church and the Magisterium, they weren't protected by the Holy Spirit, so they could have been just full of it.

The word "teach" is overused and generalized. V2 did not teach; it promoted, argued, persuaded. Strictly speaking, a Church teaching is a binding truth, which ALL must assent to, under pain of sin, to get to heaven. Such teachings apply to solemn pronouncements, but also Scripture and Tradition (which account for 99% of the Faith).

Seraphina · « **Reply #80 on:** June 17, 2022, 01:43:42 AM »

Well, he got that one right!

trento · « **Reply #81 on:** June 17, 2022, 02:01:00 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on June 14, 2022, 03:02:04 PM

Yes, V2 asked for a reform of the missal (which happened afterwards). Same with Trent asking for a codification of the missal (which happened afterwards...Quo Primum happened after Trent).

V2 didn't give all the gory details of what Bugnini had in mind for the new mass; it only mentioned that the liturgy needed to be "updated" for the "people's of God" and "greater unity" (i.e. meaningless, modernistic phrases).

V2 also asked for the primacy of Gregorian chant and Latin, which obviously the Consilium didn't obey. So to be fair and strictly speaking, the product of Bugnini went against V2. I'm not defending V2, just trying to point out false generalizations and myths.

Stubborn · « **Reply #82 on:** June 17, 2022, 05:15:37 AM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on June 16, 2022, 06:37:52 PM

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 16, 2022, 06:06:59 PM
your view of the Church can hardly be excused of being outright heretical. Only the confusion of these days absolves you from heresy.

I honestly don't really believe that anymore. There's limits to culpability here, especially once one takes it upon themselves to start promoting an obviously erroneous position that blasphemes Holy Mother Church... A "material heretic" is a Catholic in good faith who merely makes a mistake on Church dogma, but is open to correction. When you stray out of that position, the individual becomes culpable. This is what I've come to understand about why MHFM so openly refers to others has heretics. Language which the Church has traditionally used, yet has been usurped by more "ecuмenical" phrases like Modernist, pseudo-traditionalist, conservative, etc. out of human respect.

Completely agree, well said.

The problem at hand is when the material heretic, i.e. "a Catholic in good faith who merely makes a mistake on Church dogma" is *not* open to correction. This is the situation we are in right now apparently, here in this current discussion - not to mention may other discussions here - no?

Presumably in good faith, the argument is that it is a de fide teaching of the Church that error *cannot* come out of an Ecuмenical Council of the Church, yet at the same time everyone admits that error *did in fact*, come out of an Ecuмenical Council of the Church. What is one to do with a conundrum such as this?

We cannot say this idea is a de fide teaching of the Church since the Church has never taught this in any of her Councils or Encyclicals - at least no one has ever produced said teaching - but we can say that to our knowledge, this protection from error that Ecuмenical Councils enjoy, is what the all of the faithful have believed always and everywhere, which is to say on that account, the belief itself is wholly Catholic, right and good. The question is, does this belief make the infallibility of Councils de fide? Or is this belief relatively new, ie only a few centuries old?

What is certain, is being comprised of the pope and all the bishops, V2 certainly meets the definition of being an Ecuмenical Council, yet from it came errors by the bucket full.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #83 on:** June 17, 2022, 06:13:15 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on June 17, 2022, 05:15:37 AM

I honestly don't really believe that anymore. There's limits to culpability here, especially once one takes it upon themselves to start promoting an obviously erroneous position that blasphemes Holy Mother Church... A "material heretic" is a Catholic in good faith who merely makes a mistake on Church dogma, but is open to correction. When you stray out of that position, the individual becomes culpable. This is what I've come to understand about why MHFM so openly refers to others has heretics. Language which the Church has traditionally used, yet has been usurped by more "ecuмenical" phrases like Modernist, pseudo-traditionalist, conservative, etc. out of human respect.
Completely agree, well said.

The problem at hand is when the material heretic, i.e. "a Catholic in good faith who merely makes a mistake on Church dogma" is *not* open to correction. This is the situation we are in right now apparently, here in this current discussion - not to mention may other discussions here - no?

Presumably in good faith, the argument is that it is a de fide teaching of the Church that error *cannot* come out of an Ecuмenical Council of the Church, yet at the same time everyone admits that error *did in fact*, come out of an Ecuмenical Council of the Church. What is one to do with a conundrum such as this?

We cannot say this idea is a de fide teaching of the Church since the Church has never taught this in any of her Councils or Encyclicals - at least no one has ever produced said teaching - but we can say that to our knowledge, this protection from error that Ecuмenical Councils enjoy, is what the all of the faithful have believed always and everywhere, which is to say on that account, the belief itself is wholly Catholic, right and good. The question is, does this belief make the infallibility of Councils de fide? Or is this belief relatively new, ie only a few centuries old?

What is certain, is being comprised of the pope and all the bishops, V2 certainly meets the definition of being an Ecuмenical Council, yet from it came errors by the bucket full.

Exactly, especially the highlighted.

What to make of the conundrum?

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.

Has it been defined? If so, we haven't seen, and still wait to see, it.

Have popes in encyclicals made statements supporting their view? They could be read that way, but you could read the statements in the way that Stubborn reads them, as referring to the true doctrine of the Church springing from Tradition and Scripture.

In any event, there is a definite inconsistency in the position of some on the indefectibility issue by relying on the statements of popes in encyclicals when they at the same time reject ordinary magisterial statements in catechisms - even universal catechisms approved by a pope, like the Catechism of Trent - that support the concept of a baptism of desire, which they maintain is an erroneous teaching having to do with a profound issue of the faith such as who may be justified with God.

If Lad's view (for example) is right on indefectibility, that would mean that the "ordinary magisterium" can be defectible and erroneous on such a profound matter of faith as justification, but it can't be on indefectibility - really? Is that a legitimate view?

Hello? Did Lad mention "cognitive dissonance" somewhere?

One might throw a species of their question back at them (those who hold Lad's view), and ask, what good is your indefectible ordinary Magisterium if it could err so gravely on a matter of faith as justification? Or one could howl like them about heresy or savoring of heresy for presuming that the OM could made such an error - like indeed Lover of Truth, for example, has.

Physicians, heal thyselves.

The Lad crowd accuses some of staining Holy Mother Church by saying its hierarchs, and even popes, may have departed from truth in teaching error, thereby making a mockery of the protections of the Holy Ghost, when they make the same mockery of the same protections by finding them capable of allowing the magisterium to be "usurped" and the very purpose of the protections - so that there would be a reliable institution man could rely on to communicate truth - totally undermined in the mass deception that is foisted on the world by an "impostor." A monster of a deception that was initially begotten by the cardinals of a Magisterium of a genuine pope, who selected them all, when they selected John XXIII.

And for those enamored of the Siri theory, you want us to believe that the Holy Ghost, after Siri's resignation, said effectively "the hell with the Church and the protections it is to afford God's people, Siri resigned, therefore let confusion and heresy and error thrive, millions in good faith believe that error is truth, etc. - I'm clear of it all."

I say you make a mockery worse than us, by suggesting that the Holy Ghost would allow such to happen, in effect, to simply protect your understanding of indefectibility.

Finally, at least Stubborn (and Pax) are consistent in rejecting both the bloated concept of indefectibility and the BOD of the theologians. Lad (DL?) shouts with the biggest voice against them, which is ironic since he has this big beam sticking out of his eye (rejecting the ordinary magisterium on BOD).

We can call each other heretics and heretics over and over. But, as Stubborn said, we have a "crux" that is worth discussing, and the answers which are suggested by 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 don't adequately address the problem.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #84 on:** June 17, 2022, 06:40:33 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on June 17, 2022, 05:15:37 AM

Presumably in good faith, the argument is that it is a de fide teaching of the Church that error *cannot* come out of an Ecuмenical Council of the Church, yet at the same time everyone admits that error *did in fact*, come out of an Ecuмenical Council of the Church. What is one to do with a conundrum such as this?

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/

Stubborn · « **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!

Ladislaus · « **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.

2Vermont · « **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?

DecemRationis · « **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

DecemRationis · « **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

Author Topic: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II (Read 39914 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II

Ladislaus

Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II

DigitalLogos

Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II

Pax Vobis

Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II

Pax Vobis

Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II

Seraphina

Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II

trento

Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II

Stubborn

Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II

DecemRationis

Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II

SeanJohnson

Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II

Stubborn

Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II

Ladislaus

Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II

2Vermont

Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II

DecemRationis

Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II

DecemRationis

Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II