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

Author Topic: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?  (Read 56002 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #545 on: June 02, 2023, 07:49:32 AM »
That would sorta undermine the principle of modernism to go with a direct quote tho

Not at all.  I've known many Modernists who make citations and direct quotations all the time.  In fact, Rahner compiled the 1960 Enchiridion Symbolorum, which is little more than a huge volume of quotes from the Magisterium.  Now, he did sneak stuff in there that should have been there, but that's a separate issue.

Rahner was a Modernist, but he was an extremely well-educated and bright individual ... no dummy by any stretch.

Alas, having been a German, he was excessively enamored by the philosophy of Kant, and that led him down the unfortunate path to phenomenology, which is at the heart of Modernism.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #546 on: June 02, 2023, 07:57:32 AM »
Rahner was incredibly influential in laying out the new Vatican II ecclesiology.
Quote
In early 1962, with no prior warning, Rahner's superiors in the Society of Jesus told him that he was under Rome's pre-censorship, which meant that he could not publish or lecture without advance permission. The objections of the Roman authorities focused mainly on Rahner's views on the Eucharist and Mariology; however, the practical import of the pre-censorship decision was voided in November 1962 when, without any objection, John XXIII appointed Rahner a peritus (expert advisor) to the Second Vatican Council: Rahner had complete access to the council and numerous opportunities to share his thought with the participants. Rahner's influence at Vatican II was thus widespread, and he was subsequently chosen as one of seven theologians who would develop Lumen gentium, the dogmatic explication of the doctrine of the Church. The council's receptiveness towards other religious traditions may be linked to Rahner's notions of the renovation of the church, God's universal salvific revelation, and his desire to support and encourage the ecuмenical movement.

Thus, Rahner knew full well that he was updating or changing the traditional definition of the Church, and that it was novel, a break with the "received theology" prior to Vatican II, and so he marveled that his new ecclesiology had flown under the radar at V2 and went unnoticed by and did not cause a stir among the conservatives at Vatican II.


Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #547 on: June 04, 2023, 04:42:48 PM »
1.  All of this is a legal act, done by legal authorities.  It can't be done by any layman.
2.  First it must be proved that person A said heresy x.
3.  Then it must be proved that heresy x was said 'publicly' (as canon law defines it, not according to Webster's dictionary).
4.  Then it must be proved that person A knew, or should have known, that heresy x was in fact a heresy.
5.  Then it must be determined if the 'public sin of heresy' was committed and the penalty, according to law.

That I cannot determine by perceiving with my senses and apprehending with my intellect that the public sin of heresy has occurred and that I must wait for the Church to make that judgment is nonsense.  That's like saying I have to wait for the weatherman to tell me that it's raining outside before I can make the judgment that it is.  God gave me faculties to use them.   

Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #548 on: June 04, 2023, 04:52:54 PM »
I reject such because i'm legally allowed to, since they aren't binding under pain of sin for me to attend/accept.  Even +Benedict said in 2007's motu that Quo Primum was still legally in effect and this law a) binds me to the Old rite, b) prevents me from attending any other rite, and c) disallows any new rites.  No post-V2 law has ever made the new mass obligatory, in any degree.

None of this gives you the right to outright reject Vatican II and the New Mass.  What you have done is claimed that they are not Catholic and therefore you reject them, but none of the conciliar popes have said that they are not Catholic.  On the contrary, they have insisted that they are Catholic.  Therefore, you have made a judgment in contradiction to the judgment of the conciliar popes.   

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #549 on: June 04, 2023, 05:02:48 PM »
None of this gives you the right to outright reject Vatican II and the New Mass.

:facepalm:  Jorge's Conciliar predecessors are guilty of the exact same heresies that Jorge holds.  For you to claim otherwise would be a rather pathetic act of intellectual dishonesty.