Author Topic: John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble  (Read 6021 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline twiceborn

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 83
  • Reputation: +25/-1
John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
« Reply #30 on: September 23, 2011, 05:04:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Caminus
    I have detailed the very serious theological problems elsewhere.


    Do you have a link to it?

    Offline s2srea

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5020
    • Reputation: +3827/-28
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #31 on: September 23, 2011, 05:15:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Caminus
    Whether you like it or not, the problem began with Rome and it will end with Rome.  To give up on the Romans and juridical recognition is to turn one's back on the Church, for there can be no contradiction between the charity and law as it stands today; between the integrity of the faith and legal rectitude of succession.  The sede's are in a real predicament, though they don't see it because they are blinded by their unscientific opinions.  I have detailed the very serious theological problems elsewhere.


    Dear friend, you speak with such sophistry and pride. It seems that since you know (and I'm sure you do know) and are so well learned in theology and may know how to think like a theologian, that those who do not, are simply unable to obtain the truth and see what indeed lies in the road ahead. I've pointed this out before. You place so much trust in jurisdiction and recognition of those who have, themselves, destroyed it.

    That doesn't make sense to me. You might emphasize this point. But I believe in the words of our Lord, "become as little children,." I would rather see this and view it simply, like a child would, than someone who thinks Christ will work only through theology and Cannon law. He is above that, and to that there is no response.

    The sede's are in a tight predicament, and you act as if the SSPX isn't. Who isn't in a tight predicament?


    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3013
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #32 on: September 23, 2011, 09:23:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I do speak as a child, a child and son of the Roman Catholic Church; a child and son who knows that his Mother is sick with a terrible disease and sees the remedy sitting on the shelf in a dusty corner while She is too delirious to comprehend its presence or effect.  This Mother, our Roman Mother, must be the same as before, that is She must possess identity through succession and jurisdiction, the very thing that Our Lord gave to Our Mother in order to teach, govern and sanctify, that is, to carry out His mission in nursing and raising His children.  Jurisdiction is no light matter, identity, succession, continuity are no light matter.  

    Any simple child can tell who is his own Mother, albeit ill, and an entirely new creation raised from the ashes that sedevacantism presents at some point in the unknown future, from whence it is anyone's guess; demanding that authority has ceased to exist, whilst having us believe that its re-emergence is perfectly congruous with Catholic thought; tagging us along, with a carrott on a stick, presumptuously expecting a miracle and specially infused knowledge to perfectly discern the identity of a true Pope and Bishops somewhere off in the distant future.  But one cannot give what one does not possess; the principle of continuity and jurisdiction is annihilated; the very thing that gives the Church its legitimacy among the myriad of sects.  And any Roman child would hold as abhorrent any pretended Roman Mother who arose from an unknown root, even though She appeared as an angel of light.  If this be admitted, then any sect could claim legitimacy.  The entire notion is repugnant and any child can see that; he can discern his Mother, though ill and sickly, from a substitution, though beautiful and apparently sound.  

    Christ's face was disfigured, so too the Church's face, yet, not a bone was broken and this signifies the fundamental jurisdiction that holds the body intact.  That is why I say that the problem began in Rome and must end in Rome as Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta recently noted.    

    Offline twiceborn

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 83
    • Reputation: +25/-1
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #33 on: September 23, 2011, 10:58:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Caminus
    I do speak as a child, a child and son of the Roman Catholic Church; a child and son who knows that his Mother is sick with a terrible disease and sees the remedy sitting on the shelf in a dusty corner while She is too delirious to comprehend its presence or effect.  This Mother, our Roman Mother, must be the same as before, that is She must possess identity through succession and jurisdiction, the very thing that Our Lord gave to Our Mother in order to teach, govern and sanctify, that is, to carry out His mission in nursing and raising His children.  Jurisdiction is no light matter, identity, succession, continuity are no light matter.  

    Any simple child can tell who is his own Mother, albeit ill, and an entirely new creation raised from the ashes that sedevacantism presents at some point in the unknown future, from whence it is anyone's guess; demanding that authority has ceased to exist, whilst having us believe that its re-emergence is perfectly congruous with Catholic thought; tagging us along, with a carrott on a stick, presumptuously expecting a miracle and specially infused knowledge to perfectly discern the identity of a true Pope and Bishops somewhere off in the distant future.  But one cannot give what one does not possess; the principle of continuity and jurisdiction is annihilated; the very thing that gives the Church its legitimacy among the myriad of sects.  And any Roman child would hold as abhorrent any pretended Roman Mother who arose from an unknown root, even though She appeared as an angel of light.  If this be admitted, then any sect could claim legitimacy.  The entire notion is repugnant and any child can see that; he can discern his Mother, though ill and sickly, from a substitution, though beautiful and apparently sound.  

    Christ's face was disfigured, so too the Church's face, yet, not a bone was broken and this signifies the fundamental jurisdiction that holds the body intact.  That is why I say that the problem began in Rome and must end in Rome as Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta recently noted.    


    That was quite inspired Caminus, well done :)

    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #34 on: September 23, 2011, 11:07:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Church can't be "sick" or have "cancer."  That's a flagrant theological error.  Of course Caminus will say he's speaking "figurative" and claims (being a mind-reader) that (for example) Archbishop Lefebvre couldn't possibly have really meant that those who excommunicated him were excommunicated themselves.

    I guess saying what you mean and meaning what you say have become foreign concepts in this time.


    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3013
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #35 on: September 23, 2011, 11:36:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Admitting that the sins and errors of Catholics, i.e. the human element, can injure the Church, disfigure or harm the Church, is not only theologically permissible, the doctrine is taught in the Sacred Scriptures and the Fathers.  You are confounding the Spotless Bride, whose perfection is to be found in the Church Trimphant and the human element of the Church Militant, thus creating an erroneous picture of the Church, much like Calvin did with his ecclesiology of the elect and the Donatists who refused to admit such blemishes.

    In fact, members of the Church can become more perfectly united to the Mystical Body within, the Saints being the exemplars of this truth.  If that is true, the converse is also true, that such intrinsic spiritual union that is to be perfected, can be lessened, imperfect or in some manner defective.      

    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #36 on: September 24, 2011, 12:32:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • As exilenomore posted

    Quote
    During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly."


    Mortalium Animos

    So much for saying "the Church is sick"
    "The Church has cancer"

    (Bishop Fellay)

    Or as Bishop Williamson lamentably made the comparison to a rotten apple.

    Uncontaminated means uncontaminated.  

    Ultimately you have to ask why groups like the SSPX hedge everything they say, so if they say one thing they turn around and say you can't take it that they really meant it.  

    It's evident that the current hierarchy accepted by the SSPX does things that the Catholic Church cannot do.  If Archbishop Lefebvre called the Vatican a masonic lodge and said those in Rome excommunicated themselves, I take him at his word.  I don't say "oh that's not what he "really" meant."  The contradictions are reaching the point of absurdity now.  

    Quote
    78. The prescription of the synod about the order of transacting business in the conferences, in which, after it prefaced "in every article that which pertains to faith and to the essence of religion must be distinguished from that which is proper to discipline," it adds, "in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burden-some for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstitution and materialism"; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,—false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.


    Auctorem Fidei.

    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3013
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #37 on: September 24, 2011, 10:03:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly."


    This refers to the Church's divine constitution, Her holiness in doctrine, in the Sacraments, in Her intrinsic, mystical relation with Our Lord Jesus Christ.  On the other hand, this does not prevent individual members from becoming sinners and marring the Church according to Her human element.  Therein lies the distinction that you are missing and consequently are perverting Catholic doctrine reducing it to absurdity.  If your understanding is correct, how do you account for the evil that Catholics do?  Do you seriously assert that it has no affect on the Church, its internal unity, its activity and its very existence?  The errors that Mortalium Animos addressed were errors that touched upon the very essence and nature of the Church and that is why Pope Pius IX made such reference to Cyprian's statement.  The quote from Auctorem Fidei refers to traditional discipline established by authority and antiquity, therefore it is not applicable to a non-authoritative, experimental discipline that is binding upon no one; reforms that did not come from the "Church" properly speaking, but from a commission of errant men.  Therefore the quote is immaterial.  

    Regarding language, unless you would accuse ABL of a terrible schizophrenia, you must take it in a certain sense.  The Vatican obviously was not literally a "masonic lodge" and therefore he used figurative, descriptive language that described a certain reality.  But if you don't have the patience to discern the sense of a man's words, then I suggest you get out of this debate altogether as the temperament of your mind won't allow you to engage in serious discussion.    


    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #38 on: September 24, 2011, 11:29:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Caminus
    therefore it is not applicable to a non-authoritative, experimental discipline that is binding upon no one;


    The Second Vatican Council, the encyclicals, and yes, the new rites of the sacraments are binding if one accepts them as coming from legitimate authority.  

    Saying that the "Church has cancer" is referring to these errors being spread from "inside" the Church, by the men accepted as the hierarchy by the SSPX.

    Quote
    Regarding language, unless you would accuse ABL of a terrible schizophrenia, you must take it in a certain sense.    


    No, I don't, I accuse the neo-SSPX of schizophrenia.  Archbishop Lefebvre was pretty clear about the attitude to take to men such as Cardinal Ratzinger when he was alive.  Which is why Bishop Fellay is asked about the society no longer mentioning much Archbishop Lefebvre. (and his answer didn't say "on the contrary we talk about him a lot" - no, his answer gave excuses for not talking about him)

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-5
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #39 on: September 24, 2011, 01:07:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Caminus said:
    Quote
    This refers to the Church's divine constitution, Her holiness in doctrine, in the Sacraments, in Her intrinsic, mystical relation with Our Lord Jesus Christ.  On the other hand, this does not prevent individual members from becoming sinners and marring the Church according to Her human element.


    Holiness in doctrine, you mean such as saying that false religions have seeds of the Word?

    Holiness in the sacraments, you mean in the bastardized and invalid New Rite of Consecration?  Or how about the Mass without any consecration at all entirely approved of by JPII?  I won't speak about the "for all" in the Novus Ordo Mass because you will say that it isn't the official Novus Ordo Mass, and apparently you think that the true Church is kept alive by a rubric preserved in glass somewhere that is never used...

    As for individual members being "sinners," it is now nigh-on two years since I've been here that you refuse to address the real issue which is that heretics are not just sinners, but non-Catholics.  They are not members of the Church.  What does it say about you that you are TRYING to confuse people, to make them equate those who commit mortal sins of the flesh or whatever, with heretics?  You are intellectually dishonest.  You know very well that mortal sinners are dead members of the Church; and heretics are not in the Church at all.  But in your posts, you blur the difference -- now why would someone who wants the truth do that, hm?  The irony of you always talking about distinctions is so very rich... You are the last person who should accuse anyone else of not making distinctions.  All I can say is that for someone who wants to be the lay version of Garrigou-Lagrange you certainly aren't very rigorous in your arguments, relying on a bunch of sophistry and hedging.

    If a heretic could be Pope, when the Holy Ghost has promised the Pope would be infallible on faith and morals, how would we ever know where the truth is?  If a Pope could disfigure the Deposit of Faith, Christ's Church has no meaning, no sense.  Your "Peter" doesn't have the keys; he is a latchkey kid whose mommy is Bishop Fellay, and who can have his privileges -- like infallibility -- revoked for bad behavior, then given back to him when he's good...  Which in effect makes this totally random out-of-nowhere figure Bishop Fellay the Pope...  He is the one who decides when what the Pope says is true or not, instead of God.  Everything is backwards; we can no longer trust the Pope to teach us correctly on faith and morals, we just pick and choose what we like among his various teachings.  This is what you call a rock?  It's more like moldy Swiss cheese.

    The logical consequence of the SSPX position is basically a subtle form of Old Catholicism -- you have, in effect, established a democratic form of Church government and effaced the papacy.  It's yet another form of revolution, naturalizing what is supernatural, taking the Holy Ghost's supernatural protection of the Pope and replacing it with a purely natural and man-made ( and thus precarious and doomed ) protection in the form of Bishop Fellay.
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS

    Offline John Grace

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5521
    • Reputation: +120/-6
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #40 on: September 24, 2011, 01:31:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger in 1987
    Quote
    Eminence, even if you give us everything--a bishop, some autonomy from the bishops, the 1962 liturgy, allow us to continue our seminaries--we cannot work together because we are going in different directions. You are working to dechristianize society and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them.


    Bishop Fellay in 2008
    Quote
    In the present circumstances, an agreement with the conciliar authorities would be suicidal.


    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3013
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #41 on: September 24, 2011, 02:28:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Holiness in doctrine, you mean such as saying that false religions have seeds of the Word?


    Is that a doctrine of the faith, taught by the Church or Scripture, found anywhere in the sources of revelation?  Has it been taught with authority?  Even if I granted such a notion, what does it really mean anyway?  That truth is found in false religions and all truth is referred ultimately to the Word?

    Quote
    Holiness in the sacraments, you mean in the bastardized and invalid New Rite of Consecration?
     

    The liturgy that surrounds the Blessed Sacrament and the Blessed Sacrament itself are two entirely different things.  The gratuitous claims of invalidity can be gratuitously denied.  Why do you people continue to parrott such unproven mantras?  Do you think it somehow justifies your opinions?  

    Quote
    Or how about the Mass without any consecration at all entirely approved of by JPII?
     

    Again, an entirely separate question.  Arguing that a particular consecration form is valid or not does not touch upon the notion of the holiness of the Sacraments themselves.  Be that as it may, the opinion to which you refer is merely that, a non-binding opinion issued by a Congregation.  Such judgments are not irreformable and consequently essentially fallible.  Your citation of this case merely demonstrates that modern clerics lack the theological training to deal with these questions in a sound manner.  Certainly injurious to Catholics, no?    

    Quote
    I won't speak about the "for all" in the Novus Ordo Mass because you will say that it isn't the official Novus Ordo Mass, and apparently you think that the true Church is kept alive by a rubric preserved in glass somewhere that is never used...


    It has been demonstrated that "for all" does not invalidate the form.  I'm not sure what you mean by "keeping the Church alive."  In fact, it is dying before our eyes.  

    Quote
    As for individual members being "sinners," it is now nigh-on two years since I've been here that you refuse to address the real issue which is that heretics are not just sinners, but non-Catholics.
     

    You beg the question by stating this truism.  But in fact, it is generally agreed that occult heretics retain membership in the Church.  Pretty injurious to the Church, no?  There are varying degrees of error as well, a fact that you simply refuse to deal with because it throws a wrench in your opining.  

    Quote
    They are not members of the Church.  What does it say about you that you are TRYING to confuse people, to make them equate those who commit mortal sins of the flesh or whatever, with heretics?  You are intellectually dishonest.
     

    I'm not trying to confuse people.  I'm driving the point home that the Church can be injured by sinners of all kinds.  You brought up heretics.  Even one Catholic in a state of mortal sin is harmful to the Church.  Do you understand this?  

    Quote
    You know very well that mortal sinners are dead members of the Church; and heretics are not in the Church at all.  But in your posts, you blur the difference -- now why would someone who wants the truth do that, hm?  The irony of you always talking about distinctions is so very rich... You are the last person who should accuse anyone else of not making distinctions.  All I can say is that for someone who wants to be the lay version of Garrigou-Lagrange you certainly aren't very rigorous in your arguments, relying on a bunch of sophistry and hedging.


    Well, that's true if my opponent injects superfluous statements into my points and thereby chastizes me for not making proper distinctions, then I concede your point.   :laugh1:  

    Quote
    If a heretic could be Pope, when the Holy Ghost has promised the Pope would be infallible on faith and morals, how would we ever know where the truth is?
     

    Your begging the question.  An heretic cannot be Pope.  Whether this or that man is an heretic is a question of fact.  That is what begging the question means, assuming something is true that is yet to be proven.

    Quote
    If a Pope could disfigure the Deposit of Faith, Christ's Church has no meaning, no sense.
     

    Why? If a single bishop could disfigure the deposit of faith, or even a large body, and yet admit that Christ's Church still has "meaning," where do you draw the line?  

    As to the rest of your comments, I have directly challenged your notions in several threads.  Until you deal with them, I have nothing more to say regarding your "logical conclusions."

    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4619
    • Reputation: +3946/-394
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #42 on: September 24, 2011, 06:06:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Caminus
    Mr. Vennari's observations amount to a series of hand-wringing "what-if's".  


    I am at a complete loss in understanding you.  Though I think you are fundamentally mistaken, your post was, except for this point, a reasonable post.  I realize some may disagree with me about that statement, but it was.  It is an honest assessment of your thoughts.

    The above statement, however, is merely a gratuitous calumny of a man who has done much to bring many Catholics to tradition, who makes well-reasoned and convincing arguments on numerous issues of interest to traditional Catholics, and who essentially agrees with you on virtually every thing concerning the Society.

    Mr. Vennari has written in favor of contacts of the Society with Rome and, should Bishop Fellay accept some sort of understanding with Rome, he will not abandon the Society.  

    What he has done in this article is not to warn Bishop Fellay of anything, but rather he is identifying some of the "minor" issues that have impacted traditional Catholics when they "returned to Rome" in the past that the Society leadership may not always have in mind.  

    I do understand your comments.  The one thing the Modernists in Rome do is to foment division within the ranks.  I am not saying that this doesn't happen is some traditional ghettos, but there is no unity anywhere in the Conciliar church in government or faith.  

    Offline Gregory I

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1542
    • Reputation: +659/-105
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #43 on: September 24, 2011, 06:26:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Caminus, the 1968 order of episcopal consecration can be deomnstrated as invalid based on this fact:

    1. They used an "eastern form."
    2. This "eastern form" come from the maronite rite of the enthronement of a patriarch.
    3. A patriarch is already a Bishop!

    Therefore, the rite has, at its basis, prayers which are substantially different and not the same as prayers of episcopal consecration.

    Therefore the rite cannot be valid.

    A scrament must signify what it effects, and effect what it signifies (Pope Leo XIII). None of the essential prayers signify the effect: The elevation of a man into the episcopate and its duties.

    Therefore, it is invalid.

    If you want a detailed answer, say so.
    'Take care not to resemble the multitude whose knowledge of God's will only condemns them to more severe punishment.'

    -St. John of Avila

    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3013
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #44 on: September 24, 2011, 07:14:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: TKGS
    Quote from: Caminus
    Mr. Vennari's observations amount to a series of hand-wringing "what-if's".  


    I am at a complete loss in understanding you.  Though I think you are fundamentally mistaken, your post was, except for this point, a reasonable post.  I realize some may disagree with me about that statement, but it was.  It is an honest assessment of your thoughts.

    The above statement, however, is merely a gratuitous calumny of a man who has done much to bring many Catholics to tradition, who makes well-reasoned and convincing arguments on numerous issues of interest to traditional Catholics, and who essentially agrees with you on virtually every thing concerning the Society.

    Mr. Vennari has written in favor of contacts of the Society with Rome and, should Bishop Fellay accept some sort of understanding with Rome, he will not abandon the Society.  

    What he has done in this article is not to warn Bishop Fellay of anything, but rather he is identifying some of the "minor" issues that have impacted traditional Catholics when they "returned to Rome" in the past that the Society leadership may not always have in mind.  

    I do understand your comments.  The one thing the Modernists in Rome do is to foment division within the ranks.  I am not saying that this doesn't happen is some traditional ghettos, but there is no unity anywhere in the Conciliar church in government or faith.  


    How do you get 'calumny' out of that statement?  It was certainly not intended as an insult to the man, let alone could it qualify as calumny.  If the SSPX retains complete independence these "what if's" become moot.  My position is predicated upon complete juridical independence; anything less would not be acceptable.  In the minds of the men who occupy Roman offices, there is simply no valid reason not to offer such independence, in light of their own principles of "plurality" and "freedom."  If it is not offered, then the SSPX ought to refuse any lesser agreement.    


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16