Author Topic: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II (Read 46128 times)

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/

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II (Read 46128 times)

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