Author Topic: Can it be said that Vatican II is heretical? TAKE TWO (Read 5704 times)

misericordianos · « **Reply #45 on:** May 04, 2015, 12:51:19 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

And, ironically, Father Feeney HIMSELF did not place a lot of emphasis on BoD/BoB, but rather on EENS proper. He held a personal opinion regarding BoD/BoB which he was ready to retract at any time in deference to Church teaching, an opinion which I share. But the enemies of Father Feeney's defense of EENS are the ones who blow BoD out of proportion and conflate it with the broader EENS issue in order to undermine EENS.

Yes. I have also made the mistake and said Father Feeney identified BOD as a major issue or the “linchpin” doctrine. That’s wrong, as you note. Father Feeney identified EENS as the “linchpin” doctrine.

And he was absolutely right.

Most Trads make a big deal out of VII and what followed. For myself, I think those things came upon the Church because of the absolutely shoddy handling of the Father Feeney affair. The necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation was placed forefront just when it needed to be, and we got the Holy Office Letter in response. An utter failure under the circuмstances; a woeful response.

I think there was a divine weighing at that time, and the governing body of the Church was fond wanting. I think the Feeney affair was a watershed.

And the rest is history.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #46 on:** May 04, 2015, 01:00:48 PM »

Quote from: misericordianos

Quote from: Ladislaus
And, ironically, Father Feeney HIMSELF did not place a lot of emphasis on BoD/BoB, but rather on EENS proper. He held a personal opinion regarding BoD/BoB which he was ready to retract at any time in deference to Church teaching, an opinion which I share. But the enemies of Father Feeney's defense of EENS are the ones who blow BoD out of proportion and conflate it with the broader EENS issue in order to undermine EENS.

Yes. I have also made the mistake and said Father Feeney identified BOD as a major issue or the “linchpin” doctrine. That’s wrong, as you note. Father Feeney identified EENS as the “linchpin” doctrine.

And he was absolutely right.

Most Trads make a big deal out of VII and what followed. For myself, I think those things came upon the Church because of the absolutely shoddy handling of the Father Feeney affair. The necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation was placed forefront just when it needed to be, and we got the Holy Office Letter in response. An utter failure under the circuмstances; a woeful response.

I think there was a divine weighing at that time, and the governing body of the Church was fond wanting. I think the Feeney affair was a watershed.

And the rest is history.

Absolutely right on target. These same hierarchs who silenced and persecuted Father Feeney would be the ones who later brought us Vatican II, founded in the same theology which they articulated against Father Feeney.

And Suprema Haec doesn't pass the smell test. It was published 3 years after allegedly being written ... shortly after the man whose signature it allegedly bears DIED. It never appeared in AAS and so is not to be considered an act of the authentic papal Magisterium. Why didn't it appear in AAS? Was it because Pius XII would have scrutinized it personally? Just look at all the shennanigans around fake statements attributed to Sister Lucia being put out by the Vatican right around the same time. By that time the Church had already been DEEPLY INFILTRATED and was being subverted. And it's these errors and this ecclesiology which comprise all the errors in Vatican II.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #47 on:** May 04, 2015, 01:08:48 PM »

We have indeed side-tracked onto "Feeneyism" on this thread, but it wasn't by design. It had to do with the fact that we point to soteriology and ecclesiology as the V2 "heresies" and get immediately attacked for being "Feeneyite".

Ladislaus · « **Reply #48 on:** May 04, 2015, 01:17:53 PM »

Ah, after 11 pages, Matthew was most likely just playing mind games with us.

"Can it be said that Vatican II is heretical?"

Answer. Of course it can be SAID to be heretical. Many people do indeed SAY so.

All this for nothing.

misericordianos · « **Reply #49 on:** May 04, 2015, 01:20:23 PM »

Charles Coulombe also says:

Quote

This Holy Office letter has appeared in various editions of Denzinger since 1963, first appearing there under the editorship of Karl Rahner, S.J., at whom we shall gaze more carefully in a moment. But it never appeared in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the official Latin language registry of all the Holy See’s official acts. Indeed, it did not see the light of day at all, until after the death of Marchetti-Selvaggiani a few years later; at that time it was finally published in the American Ecclesiastical Review. When Rahner decided to put it into Denzinger, he had to have it translated into Latin from English, whence it was retranslated for the English edition of Denzinger. To say that the authority of such a docuмent is more than a little suspect is perhaps the most charitable thing to be said for it. It has been maintained that the Pope himself carefully went over the wording of the letter; but the only evidence we have of this is that of Cardinal Wright. Given His Eminence’s role in this matter, some may not feel called to value his testimony too highly.

Coulombe, Charles (2009-10-01). Desire & Deception (Kindle Locations 2386-2393). Tumblar House. Kindle Edition.

An official statement of the OUM being published in the American Ecclessiatical Review?

An official, binding authoritative teaching of the Holy See sent privately to a bishop in the U.S., and only published years later in the AES. An incredible way for the Magisterium to teach the faith to the world, wouldn’t you say?

A very unusual organ and manner for Magisterial teaching.

I’m dubious about Couloumbe’s claim (as to it having to be translated into Latin) in light of this:

Quote

Given on August 8, 1949 explaining the true sense of Catholic doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church.

This important Letter of the Holy Office is introduced by a letter of the Most Reverend Archbishop of Boston.

The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has examined again the problem of Father Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict Center. Having studied carefully the publications issued by the Center, and having considered all the circuмstances of this case, the Sacred Congregation has ordered me to publish, in its entirety, the letter which the same Congregation sent me on the 8th of August, 1949. The Supreme Pontiff, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, has given full approval to this decision. In due obedience, therefore, we publish, in its entirety, the Latin text of the letter as received from the Holy Office with an English translation of the same approved by the Holy See.

Given at Boston, Mass., the 4th day of September, 1952.

Walter J. Furlong, Chancellor

Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM

But then again, it’s Cushing’s testimony. I wonder if anyone has seen that thing in the “original” Latin. :pop:

misericordianos · « **Reply #50 on:** May 04, 2015, 01:23:31 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

We have indeed side-tracked onto "Feeneyism" on this thread, but it wasn't by design. It had to do with the fact that we point to soteriology and ecclesiology as the V2 "heresies" and get immediately attacked for being "Feeneyite".

Shoot. You start replying to posts and things kind of take off.

Yes, and the points we made originally, Lad, were limited to just soteriology and ecclesiology.

:cheers:

Ladislaus · « **Reply #51 on:** May 04, 2015, 01:41:47 PM »

Quote from: misericordianos

I’m dubious about Couloumbe’s claim (as to it having to be translated into Latin) in light of this:

Yeah, something if off there. But everything else is quite accurate. There were many people quite capable back then of creating a Latin text.

PartyIsOver221 · « **Reply #52 on:** May 04, 2015, 05:52:09 PM »

Good thread, guys. Just wanted to chime in and say hi to Ladislaus and misericordianos.

Very good, thanks.

JPaul · « **Reply #53 on:** May 07, 2015, 09:37:02 PM »

......and even after another backroads tour of so called "Feeneyism", yes, it can still be said that Vatican II is heretical, by the intent of its authors, by the interpretations of the conciliar popes, and by the demonstrable aftermath of destruction and apostasy from the Holy Religion...........