Author Topic: Modern Philosophy (Read 5683 times)

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **on:** November 07, 2011, 08:56:51 PM »

Even if we presented you something that is modern, you'd deny it being modern.

Aquinas, I suggest finding another forum to post on. We're all pretty tired of arguing with someone who pays no attention to anything we say. You aren't a Traditional Catholic, so go post on a Novus Ordo forum or something.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #1 on:** November 07, 2011, 09:02:45 PM »

Quote from: aquinasg

I've been banned from the Catholic Anwers forum for saying something negative about the New Mass and being to traditional.

I find that incredibly hard to believe, because you don't seem the least bit Traditional to me. Catholic Answers is a joke. I consider it a badge of honor that I was banned from there.

Quote

You have more "ignore" points then I do though

LOL, I don't care. My ignore count doesn't tell the full story. Most of the people who have me on ignore are neo-Trads who don't even post much, and one person who has me on ignore reads alot of my posts anyway. I'd much rather have 5 ignores than 16 like a certain user here has.

s2srea · « **Reply #2 on:** November 07, 2011, 09:07:47 PM »

aquinasg=

Gregory I · « **Reply #3 on:** November 07, 2011, 09:08:53 PM »

Quote from: aquinasg

I have a challenge for traditionalists on here who (erroneously) think they have a right to dissent from the "binding" (Paul VI) teachings of an Ecuмenical Council (approved with Apostolic Authority): find me ONE, just ONE, principle of modern philosophy that Vatican II used; that is, one that cannot be found in previous Catholic thought. I am not speaking about a liberary style, but a principle.

Insteresting stuff from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, therefore, Scholasticism passed through its period of storm and stress. On the one side were the advocates of reason, Roscelin, Abelard, Peter Lombard; on the other were the champions of mysticism, St. Anselm, St. Peter Damian, St. Bernard, and the Victorines. Like all ardent advocates, the Rationalists went too far at first, and only gradually brought their method within the lines of orthodoxy and harmonized it with Christian reverence for the mysteries of Faith. Like all conservative reactionists, the mystics at first condemned the use as well as the abuse of reason; they did not reach an intelligent compromise with the dialecticians until the end of the twelfth century. In the final outcome of the struggle, it was Rationalism that, having modified its unreasonable claims, triumphed in the Christian schools, without, however driving the mystics from the field. "

New speculation wenT WAY to far after Vatican II, but you can't throw the bab ouf with the bath water. And I wonder how many of you have read the history of Catholic use of Aristotle; he was widely considered to be dangerous until Albert the Great and others came along. There is that darn word again: novelty

uh, okay existentialism. Things only are what they are in their appearance. There are no "substances" and aristotelian categories. That Philosophy animated the entire COUNCIL.

Gregory I · « **Reply #4 on:** November 07, 2011, 11:56:47 PM »

Deny Vatican II and get on the right side of the fence and then we WILL have a united front.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #5 on:** November 08, 2011, 01:24:32 PM »

Quote from: aquinasg

I want to help traditional Catholics get over this fear of Vatican II because it just brings harm to the Church in our fight against modernism. We need a unified front

Get this through your head, aquinas. We will NEVER accept Vatican II. And you most certainly are not fighting against modernism, you're fighting for it because you are a modernist. You think Vatican II was Traditional and that modernism just found it's way into the Church randomly. When in reality, Vatican II (and the Bogus Ordo) is the core of the problem. Vatican II ushered modernism in.

Quote

So you disobey a Pope who issues binding teachings because you think you have a better understanding of theology then a whole Council?

Paul VI was not a Pope. He was a Freemasonic infiltrator and a heretic. Same goes for all the other cronies who were involved in Vatican II.

PereJoseph · « **Reply #6 on:** November 08, 2011, 02:38:01 PM »

Liberalism, namely in the assertion of universal human rights, such as the right to not be restrained from publicly manifesting one's beliefs and conscience. This so-called universal human right derives from the intrinsic dignity of the human person, according to the Second Vatican Council. There is a way in which that last phrase could be given an orthodox interpretation, though it is very dangerous; Pius XII, unfortunately, used it several times, besides using liberal language a few other times. The belief in an intrinsic, universal right that is possessed by all humans to manifest their opinions, so long as their conscience is their guide, cannot be interpreted in a non-heretical manner, however. It is plainly contrary to the teaching of the Church both in its explicit magisterial expression as well as the sense in which it was understood by the faithful prior to the Latrocinium, as evidenced by historical practices and mentalities on this question (namely, every Catholic King was lauded by the Holy See for executing notorious heretics and infidels who would not cease spreading their falsehoods or blasphemies publicly).

Some FSSP clerics have attempted to show continuity between the teachings of the Church and the teachings of the Council on the question of religious liberty. This is impossible. The Church teaches that the civil authorities have a positive duty to restrain those who would publicly manifest their heresies or false teachings and religions form doing so, and suppressing and punishing them accordingly; the Church allows, however, for the civil authorities to tolerate the public manifestation of false religions and heresies, however, if it is feared that some greater evil could be prevented by such toleration. This is a prudential judgment, however, and it is not the ideal. When such evils seem like they could probably be avoided, the civil authorities must perform their duty.

Vatican II and the FSSP clerics try to say that, since the Council allows suppression of certain false and/or heretical opinions in order to protect public order, there is continuity. This is illusory, though, since they say that the necessities of public order can give occasion to the allowance of suppression, whereas the Church teaches the exact opposite, that keeping public order gives occasion to the allowance of toleration. This is a perfect contradiction. The Catholic position upholds the salvation of souls and the honour of the Truth as the good; the Conciliarist position upholds the liberal principle of freedom of conscience and freedom of expression/speech deriving from a universal intrinsic right possessed by all men as the good. The Catholic teaching says that no man has the right (which is a privilege guaranteed by an authority) to spread error, but it might be tolerated in -- and only in -- cases of emergency; furthermore, this duty on the part of the civil authorities derives from the Divine Law and morality as such. The Conciliar teaching says that all men have this right inalienably and can be stopped only in order to protect public order. There is clearly an impassable chasm between the two teachings.

There, modern philosophy and heresy in the Robber Council. Exercise completed.

I could go on.

Here, read this :

http://bibliaytradicion.wordpress.com/tradicion/faith-imperiled-by-reason-benedict-xvis-hermeneutics/

If you refuse to read this essay by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais that demonstrates the heresies of Josef Ratzinger.

PereJoseph · « **Reply #7 on:** November 08, 2011, 02:56:49 PM »

Quote from: PereJoseph

There, modern philosophy and heresy in the Robber Council. Exercise completed.

I should have said "modern philosophy and teachings proximate to heresy" in the Robber Council, based on the theological note that can be gleaned from the expression of the Pope's intention in the promulgation of Quanta Cura, which seems to relegate the question of religious liberty to the Ordinary Universal Magisterium as opposed to the Extraordinary : "Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned" (Quanta Cura, #6).

Quote

If you refuse to read this essay by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais that demonstrates the heresies of Josef Ratzinger.

I was going to say "if you refuse to read this essay... Ratzinger, you will show that you are being intellectually dishonest." I did not think that was fair, however, but did not properly edit the rest of my sentence after removing the second clause. The reason it doesn't seem fair is that the same principle could be applied liberally to anybody who refuses to read many things; I do not believe that one must read evil books in order to oppose them. Authority's condemnation of an evil book or teacher is sufficient for the Catholic, though it might not be for our enemies.

trad123 · « **Reply #8 on:** November 08, 2011, 02:57:36 PM »

Quote from: PereJoseph

This is illusory, though, since they say that the necessities of public order can give occasion to the allowance of suppression, whereas the Church teaches the exact opposite, that keeping public order gives occasion to the allowance of toleration.

This sentence sums up the refutation of Fr. Most & Fr. hαɾɾιson, nice.

PereJoseph · « **Reply #9 on:** November 08, 2011, 03:16:37 PM »

Quote from: aquinasg

Vatican II did NOT say non-Catholics have a right to error, but a right not to be prevent from following their conscience within due limits, so that they have the necessary freedom to find the truth. It is a protective right, not a permissive right, in the service of the truth.

That is semantical; the Church teaches that nobody has any right to manifest false opinions or to not be disturbed when doing so and that the civil authorities have a duty to suppress false opinions but can be allowed to tolerate them in cases of extremity. Vatican II teaches that everybody has the right to be protected from being disturbed or repressed in the manifestation of one's conscience except for the exigencies of public order. These are obviously in contradiction. If you can't see that, I don't think it's because I haven't adequately explained it to you.

Quote

"This is illusory, though, since they say that the necessities of public order can give occasion to the allowance of suppression, whereas the Church teaches the exact opposite, that keeping public order gives occasion to the allowance of toleration."

How are those two statements different?

How are they not different ? They're in direct opposition.

Quote

As Gregory XVI says, the public order can be disturbed by heresy, and Vatican II says that the government must uphold the public order.

You are paraphrasing the Magisterium rather than adhering to it. Gregory XVI says that heresy must be suppressed as such; Vatican II says that it must not be unless public order requires it. These are not the same teachings and are irreconcilable in themselves.

Quote

If it surpresses heresies when the common good does not require it (if that hypothetical is even possible), then it opposes the common good by rejecting the principle of subsidiarity.

The Church does not grant the hypothetical of your possibility. It simply permits the civil authorities to follow the lesser good and avoid some great evil through toleration -- which is an exception from their positive duty.

Quote

There is no way around it; the teachings fit together like a puzzle

There is no way around it; you are asserting something with religious persistence that has been disproven over and over again. Since proof and logic are not sufficient to deter you from your method, nothing can convince you.

Quote

And given the language of Quanta Cura, of course it is Extraordinary Magisterium. Ordinary Universal Magisterium is when he teaches something in accord with all the bishops dispersed thoughout the world. You sounded educated but you made some obvious blunders [sic]

If you believe Quanta Cura is Extraordinary Magisterium, you have no leg to stand on in your defense of what would then be clear heresies. As for the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, you don't know what you are talking about. I am obviously not formally educated in theology, but as far as I can tell, the only one making blunders here is you.

I cannot continue this discussion for the next few days; I would appreciate if somebody else would take over.

trad123 · « **Reply #10 on:** November 08, 2011, 03:38:19 PM »

Uh, your position condemns the death penalty for heretics, does it not?

trad123 · « **Reply #11 on:** November 08, 2011, 03:43:36 PM »

Quote from: aquinasg

"Church teaches that nobody has any right to manifest false opinions or to not be disturbed when doing so"

Where has the Church taught the part in bold? Nowhere. That formulation wasn't even discussed back then in Catholic circles as far as we know.

Seems to me that this is Church teaching because when they're not being disturbed, it's not because of some right they possess, but they are being tolerated to avoid a great evil, like cινιℓ ωαr. Toleration does not equate to any right.

PereJoseph · « **Reply #12 on:** November 08, 2011, 03:44:26 PM »

Quote from: aquinasg

No because it is for the common good/public order

It's still erroneous, because it assumes that heretics otherwise somehow have a right to spread their evil opinions.

trad123 · « **Reply #13 on:** November 08, 2011, 03:48:20 PM »

Quote from: PereJoseph

; the Church allows, however, for the civil authorities to tolerate the public manifestation of false religions and heresies, however, if it is feared that some greater evil could be prevented by such toleration.

The question is, does toleration at any point become a duty, or does it always remain merely permissible?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #14 on:** November 08, 2011, 03:53:16 PM »

Quote from: aquinasg

"Church teaches that nobody has any right to manifest false opinions or to not be disturbed when doing so"

It's called the First Commandment. No one has a right to spread errors and heresies.

No one has a right to worship falsely.

Moses had the right to smash the golden calf. The state has the right to protect the true religion, the Church has always taught that.