I would appreciate if someone would, please, help me understand...
I have been researching and found that Paul VI actually, explicitly, said that the Council of Vatican II did not possess dogmatic or infallibility ratification.
So, if V.II does not contain dogma or absolute truths, then why does the Vatican require the SSPX to accept it to be in full communion when other rites and confessions (Anglicans, etc.) do not recognize V.II and, yet, are considered in full communion?
Specifically, which elements of V.II does the Vatican require FSSPX to recognize in order for the Vatican to proclaim that the FSSPX is again, in full communion with Rome?
And, more importantly, why would it be wrong for the FSSPX to accept full communion with the Vatican, if V.II does not carry dogmatic or infallibility ratification?
Unless a dogma or an absolute truth is proclaimed in a doctrine, we Catholics are not bound by that doctrine that raises only to the level of "consuetudine" (I don't know how to translate this from Italian) and, therefore, cannot be cause for excommunication.
Please help me understand if and where my logic is flawed.
I would appreciate if someone would, please, help me understand...Firstly, the terms "full communion" (and partial communion) are novel terms; they have only existed in V2 era. They were invented to explain/threaten Traditionalists who were in "full communion" with ETERNAL ROME (i.e. 2,000 years of orthodoxy), but who are against CURRENT new-rome. In reality, new-rome is schismatic and heretical.
I have been researching and found that Paul VI actually, explicitly, said that the Council of Vatican II did not possess dogmatic or infallibility ratification.
So, if V.II does not contain dogma or absolute truths, then why does the Vatican require the SSPX to accept it to be in full communion when other rites and confessions (Anglicans, etc.) do not recognize V.II and, yet, are considered in full communion?
Specifically, which elements of V.II does the Vatican require FSSPX to recognize in order for the Vatican to proclaim that the FSSPX is again, in full communion with Rome?New-rome wants everyone to be part of one, big, happy, ecuмenical, religious family. They just want the new-sspx to accept V2 IN GENERAL, and to be "quiet" about those issues where they disagree (similar to how most indult'ers don't criticize new-rome anymore).
And, more importantly, why would it be wrong for the FSSPX to accept full communion with the Vatican, if V.II does not carry dogmatic or infallibility ratification?It would be wrong for a number of reasons.
Unless a dogma or an absolute truth is proclaimed in a doctrine, we Catholics are not bound by that doctrine that raises only to the level of "consuetudine" (I don't know how to translate this from Italian) and, therefore, cannot be cause for excommunication.I don't know anything about that term, but yes, one cannot be excommunicated for ignoring a non-doctrine.
Please help me understand if and where my logic is flawed.
... the reasons why the Council was called:
.I don't know anything about that term, but yes, one cannot be excommunicated for ignoring a non-doctrine.
V2's purpose is to replace true Catholicism with a new humanistic, protestant version of Catholicism. To "accept" it, in any degree, is to join the new, one-world religion.
Correct, and yet many of you R&R continue to attribute this garbage to Holy Mother Church.Even a sedeprivationist would recognize V2 as a legal council. We just don't recognize it as morally binding, both because 1) it does not hold the marks necessary to be morally binding, and because 2) most probably Paul VI was spiritually impounded and did not hold spiritual authority. But the overall reason, in my mind, is that "religious submission" is a legal idea; it's not a moral theology principle. So, V2 is part of the Church's history, but only in a legal sense. It's not part of "Holy Mother Church" in the spiritual sense.
We know why the Council was called. It was called by enemies of the faith who had infiltrated the papacy precisely in order to undermine and, if possible, to destroy the Church. Roncalli was a Communist-Masonic agent, and so was Montini.
You guys are spending way too much time hand-wringing about how the CHURCH could have done all this, when the Church had nothing to do with it. An enemy hath done this, and the Judaeo-Masonic-Satanic fingerprints are all over Vatican II and the NOM. Only an idiot cannot see this. So stop trying to attribute this garbage to Holy Mother Church; it's bordering on a sin against the Holy Spirit to claim that the Church delivered Vatican II and the NOM to the faithful.
This (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/the-second-vatican-council-51899/) may help, at least to understand a little better what V2 was about.Thank you. I truly appreciate the time that you are spending or, rather investing, to educate me.
Before one can understand Vatican II one must understand what Modernism is. ONE DAY IT IS CATHOLIC, THE NEXT DAY IT IS MODERNIST. The most dangerous errors are cloaked in true Catholic teaching, that is when 99% is Catholic, the 1% error can slip in unnoticed. Do this 50 times and you get 50% mix of truth and error = Modernism.Hello cassini,
Any traditional Church teaching alluded to in Vatican II remains the teaching of the Church. It is those novelties that must be rejected. The problem however is the language used, words that can mean two things. Vatican II was not the first Modernist synod. Pope Pius VI’s Auctorem fidei of 1794, written to condemn 85 propositions of the Synod of Pistoia, a local council held without the Pope’s presence in 1786 in Pistoia. The Pope wrote:
‘They knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous manoeuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the gentlest manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circuмstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.’ --- Taken from NovusOrdoWatch.org
Interesting to see Pope Benedict XVI referring to the error of the Galileo case (1616-1633) as a turning point between the Church and the world. The history of both Church and State records that the Church got it all wrong in that case and it alienated many from the Catholic church thereafter. Today, when Pope Benedict resigned, even the dogs in the street knew the Church was never proven wrong in the Galileo case. Given that it was popes from 1820, so-called traditional popes, that began and accommodated this Galilean reformation, Modernism in the womb of the Church began in 1820. Try telling anyone that and you will be called a 'lunatic.'
Thank you. I truly appreciate the time that you are spending or, rather investing, to educate me.We feel your pain - you should have seen it when the revolution first began, talk about chaos and confusion - for 20 years! Also, the Church did not do this, always remember that the Church is Christ, they are one and the same. It is an enemy that hath done this.
I feel so lost. The more I read the more I feel that I know less. It's like a reverse study: the more I research and the more I feel ignorant and the more I need to research.
This raises a daunting though... if someone who is spontaneously curious and willing to invest so much time in research and study finds that there is so much that was veiled and that needs to be carefully studied and understood, then ... how can the multitude, the majority, of our Catholic Brothers discover and understand these matters?
How can the Church have gotten away, literally, with murder?
I am falling in into a great spiritual conflict: if only a few of this community's comments ware to be correct, theologically, then I would be in sin even by merely attending Novus Ordo Mass.
I LOVE my Church as my mother. I feel that she's my home... and, now, I feel as if someone is telling me that my own, my very own, mother is not my real mother but an impostor. And the more I research the more I feel that she is an impostor. It is so painful.
Firstly, the terms "full communion" (and partial communion) are novel terms; they have only existed in V2 era. They were invented to explain/threaten Traditionalists who were in "full communion" with ETERNAL ROME (i.e. 2,000 years of orthodoxy), but who are against CURRENT new-rome. In reality, new-rome is schismatic and heretical.Thank you for helping me understand.
.New-rome wants everyone to be part of one, big, happy, ecuмenical, religious family. They just want the new-sspx to accept V2 IN GENERAL, and to be "quiet" about those issues where they disagree (similar to how most indult'ers don't criticize new-rome anymore).
.It would be wrong for a number of reasons.
1) Wrong because of scandal. V2 is a mix of truth and error. You cannot accept ANY amount of error, for any reason.
2) Wrong because of purpose. V2's purpose is to replace true Catholicism with a new humanistic, protestant version of Catholicism. To "accept" it, in any degree, is to join the new, one-world religion.
3) Wrong because of goal. All Traditionalists are doing what God wants them to do - to preserve the Faith. There's no reason to join new-rome, because the only outcome would be a compromise to one's Faith. All Traditionalists should stay with the status quo, until new-rome converts and we get a good pope elected. Joining new-rome is ѕυιcιdє.
.I don't know anything about that term, but yes, one cannot be excommunicated for ignoring a non-doctrine.
We know why the Council was called. It was called by enemies of the faith who had infiltrated the papacy precisely in order to undermine and, if possible, to destroy the Church. Roncalli was a Communist-Masonic agent, and so was Montini.Thank you for this perspective. It had escaped me but I can see how it makes eprfect sense. The Church is the victim, not the culprit. Thank you for posting in this thread, your comment did give me a different and very important viewpoint.
You guys are spending way too much time hand-wringing about how the CHURCH could have done all this, when the Church had nothing to do with it. An enemy hath done this, and the Judaeo-Masonic-Satanic fingerprints are all over Vatican II and the NOM. Only an idiot cannot see this. So stop trying to attribute this garbage to Holy Mother Church; it's bordering on a sin against the Holy Spirit to claim that the Church delivered Vatican II and the NOM to the faithful.
Well, technically, one can be excommunicated for anything ... even if perhaps unjustly.But one is not automatically excommunicated by not following a precept or the liturgy unless one violates dogmatic aspects of precepts and liturgy.
Thank you. I truly appreciate the time that you are spending or, rather investing, to educate me.I think this pretty much sums up the dilemma of the faithful during this Crisis in the Church. Do not despair. We cling to the promise that God wins in the end - has already won - due to His sacrifice on the cross.
I feel so lost. The more I read the more I feel that I know less. It's like a reverse study: the more I research and the more I feel ignorant and the more I need to research.
This raises a daunting though... if someone who is spontaneously curious and willing to invest so much time in research and study finds that there is so much that was veiled and that needs to be carefully studied and understood, then ... how can the multitude, the majority, of our Catholic Brothers discover and understand these matters?
How can the Church have gotten away, literally, with murder?
I am falling in into a great spiritual conflict: if only a few of this community's comments ware to be correct, theologically, then I would be in sin even by merely attending Novus Ordo Mass.
I LOVE my Church as my mother. I feel that she's my home... and, now, I feel as if someone is telling me that my own, my very own, mother is not my real mother but an impostor. And the more I research the more I feel that she is an impostor. It is so painful.
Even a sedeprivationist would recognize V2 as a legal council. We just don't recognize it as morally binding, both because 1) it does not hold the marks necessary to be morally binding, and because 2) most probably Paul VI was spiritually impounded and did not hold spiritual authority. But the overall reason, in my mind, is that "religious submission" is a legal idea; it's not a moral theology principle. So, V2 is part of the Church's history, but only in a legal sense. It's not part of "Holy Mother Church" in the spiritual sense.> I am illiterate and I ignore Catholic Canon but, from a logic perspective, if one holds that all Popes before Cardinal Siri's death were illicit, then any council too would be illegitimate.
Ladislaus, as a potential 'idiot' due to the fact that you quoted a few words from my post, could you show us where any poster blamed 'the Church' for its own demise?My post did.
Hello cassini,
Thank you for helping me.
I understand your comment that V.II infiltrates modernist precepts and liturgy into our Faith but, again, if what it infiltrates is not a dogma or an absolute truth that we are required to believe and follow, then why is SSPX not free to go its own way?
Perhaps I am not well versed in Catholic canon and a Faithful is required to follow all teachings regardless of their status as dogma or absolute truth.
Can you please clarify to me why I (or anyone else, for that matter) must follow non dogmatic precepts?
I have a second question. I do not understand your last paragraph. re Galileo. Are you saying that the Church was or was not wrong when She condemned him? I also don't understand "the Church was never proven wrong".
... CUT ...> I wish to help the Providence (I hope that I am not being presumptuous) because we never know how God works through us.
You ask: "how can the multitude, the majority, of our Catholic Brothers discover and understand these matters?"
I answer, by the same Providence that prompted you to come to discover and understand these matters. Once you come to believe that they don't know because they don't want to know, it is still difficult to accept - and if you try to tell them, you will find out the reason most of them have what they've got, is because that is what they really want. That's the short answer. Those who want to know will come to find out just as you did, and by the very same Providence.
Avoid the Novus Ordo like the plague that it is. Find yourself a traditional priest for the Traditional Mass and sacraments and go only there. That is where you will find Our Holy Mother, the Church - She was kicked out of all the diocsean buildings over 50 years ago.
Hi Ascanio, No doubt you are younger than I, so are at a terrible disadvantage. I first served Mass in 1949 and loved it. I volunteered to serve as often as I could, including annual retreats for men and women held every year in those days for a week. I recall at women's retreats, we two altar-boys had to leave the church and go into sacristy so we would not hear what the priest said to the women. From all this I learned the faith, what we had to believe, what was dogma, what was of the faith and what was not. You, on the other hand, probably came into the Church when churchmen were indulging in Modernism, that is changing the essence of Church teachings to suit moderrn times where science had replaced faith in many things.Thank you, again, for the time that you are investing in helping me understand.
For me, the sspx is where I and my wife, my kids and grandkids get Mass and the sacraments in a proper chapel with altar rails, sacramentals, proper stations of the cross and if possible a quire. That is how I received the faith and understood it. I want the same for my grandchildren. Another important aspect is knowing like minded Catholics. The day I hear modernism from the pulpit is the day I and my family leave. In my 20 years goind to their Mass I have not heard anything other than I heard in the 50s and 60s. I left my local parish N.O. when I saw girl alter servers and went to indult. When I heard there that Islam has the same God as Catholics I left it. I found a sspx chapel and am still there. They are a priestly society so we who attend Mass have no say in what they do or try to do. I hear plenty of what they are doing or want to do but it never happens. The chances of the SSPX joining this lot in Rome is nil as far as I am aware. I hear criticisms of Rome's modernism from the pulpit often.
> I wish to help the Providence (I hope that I am not being presumptuous) because we never know how God works through us.Yes, pretty much the whole world has been brainwashed the same way. But still, in regards to seeking the truth, you are no different than me, they are no different than you. If they want to know the truth, they will find it, just like you did, but we as individuals all make that conscience choice to either seek it or reject it. No one is saved against his will and no one is damned against his will.
I have initiated conversations with fervent and honest Catholics but they simply cannot appreciate my critics of V2 because they (as I) have been indoctrinated by relativist and postmodern theories concocted by the Frankfurt School in its Critical Theory. We have been "normalized" to this new atmosphere of politically correct, not only by V2.
> I have found three traditional Masses in my city: FSSPX, ICRSS and St Peter and, remarkably, the most humble parishoners get this controversy much better than more affluent and educated folks. I find it challenging for two reasons, but I am going to stick to TLM:
(a) my little one is 4 yo and finds it hard to keep still and quiet and
(b) my wife is Orthodox (*)
However she feels uncomfortable in a TLM. I don't even know if she would be allowed to stand and watch, anyway.
Back now to the present crisis, where the supernatural has been replaced by the natural. Here is what Taylor Marshall said at the beginning of the Amazon Synod now in progress in Rome;I find this description extreemely fitting and it mirrors my first concern.
'All these questions and doubts coalesce when we acknowledge a substantiated and collaborated fact: Satan uniquely entered the Catholic Church at some point over the last century, or even before. For over a century, the organizers of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, Liberalism, and Modernism infiltrated the Catholic Church in order to change her doctrine, her liturgy, and her mission from something supernatural to something secular. Catholics are increasingly aware of a climate change in the Catholic Church. I argue that the root of the rot extends back to an agenda put in play approximately one hundred years prior to Vatican II. It is an agenda to replace the supernatural religion of the crucified and resurrected Jesus Christ with the natural religion of humanism and globalism. It echoes the primeval choice of Adam and Eve to make themselves divine by grasping at the fruits of nature, rather than kneeling in reception of the supernatural fruit of divine grace. Lucifer also rebelled against God because in his pride he sought to ascend to the throne of God, not by sharing in the supernatural life of God, but digging deep into his own nature and reaching for the stars—and thereby falling into the abyss of Hell.'
So, how did Satan bring about what Taylor Marshal describes above but is not aware of. This rot began in 1741 and was completed in 1835 when popes allowed the heliocentrism of Galileo to replace the geocentrism of Scripture, having been fooled by Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and intellectual pride into believing the geocentrism REVEALED in the Bible, a geocentrism upheld in the Council of Trent, a geocentrism held by ALL the Fathers, a geocentrism defined as dogma by way of a papal decree of Pope Paul V that defined heliocentrism as formal heresy, a dogma of Scripture upheld by Pope Urban VII in 1633 when he found Galileo guilty of suspicion of heresy. By way of fraud, a Fr Olivieri fooled Pope Pius VII into allowing heliocentrism as a truth of nature and thus a truth of Scripture, a new material way to reinterpret Scripture. Once churchmen capitulated to human reason under the guise of science, Genesis was made comply to science not faith. Immediately after that the evolution theory of the now accepted solar system was proposed and all God's creative act now belonged to nature. When they eventually invented the Big Bang theory as a truth, Pope Pius XII tried to make it the creative act of God. It didn't work and millions rejected faith in God because science had offered a natural explanation for all we see without the need for a God.So, I understand that you do not believe in heliocentrism. Am I correct?
Finally, the assertion that the Church of 1616 was proven wrong was falsified by science itself, but the damage was done and not one pope or churchman of note since 1835 acknowledged this fact. How could they as it was churchmen who told the flock heliocentrism was proven so must be believed. A second U-turn was not an option for it would mean admitting churchmen themselves ignored an infallible papal decree, the teaching of all the Fathers, and a revelation of Scripture. At Vatican II, in Gaudium et Spes, the criticised the churchmen of 1616, calling them ignorant fuindamentalists.
The above Ascanio is a truth that no Catholic wants to hear. Traditional Catholics cannot have their popes as material heretics so will argue until they convince themselves it never happened. NOs couldn't care less, so the new climate-change secular beliefs of modern churchmen will go on with all ignorant or not accepting that it was churchmen of 1820-35 who began the journey from the supernatural belief to the natural. Use that criteria to interpret Genesis and it becomes a story made up by ignorant men rather than written under the inspiration of God to erxplain the origin of everything.
Yes, stick with the TLM, do not go to the new jazz, period. As for me, I use the SSPX for my Mass and sacraments, FSSP and ICKSP are indult masses and I refuse to go there, same as I refuse to go to the NO.Wow... I was not aware of this. I researched "indult mass" and on wikipedia I found this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indult): "The best-known indult among lay Catholics in recent times was the one granted by Pope John Paul II (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II) in 1984 authorising the world's bishops to permit celebrations of the Tridentine Mass liturgy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tridentine_Mass) in their dioceses. This indult gave rise to the term "indult Catholics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indult_Catholics)", referring to Catholics who attended such celebrations. This indult was superseded in 2007 by new legislation introduced by Pope Benedict XVI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI) in the motu proprio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motu_proprio) Summorum Pontificuм (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summorum_Pontificuм)"
Fr. Wathen puts it like this:
"People should know that attending the Indult Mass represents a very serious compromise of their faith. Before a bishop allows the Traditional Latin Mass in one of his Novus Ordo churches, according to papal direction, he exacts this commitment: Those to whom the Mass is made available must give a verbal acceptance to the Second Vatican Council and to the new mass. Whether they know it or not, everyone who attends the Indult Mass makes the same implicit commitment. In the days of the Rome persecutions, a Catholic could escape martyrdom if he would burn the tiniest pinch of incense before one of the countless Roman gods. The commitment which the pope and bishops require is that pinch of incense."
You're welcome and certainly she may - and should watch, that would certainly help her to convert to the true faith, just as long as she's not forced into it.When I married my Wife we made each other a reciprocal promise: she would allow me to raise our daughter Catholic and I would never try to convert her.
Thank you, again, for the time that you are investing in helping me understand.
I was born after V2 but I was educated, initially, by a Jesuit who home schooled me for 13 years refusing to adapt to V2 as I attended TLM, in our home chapel, every morning. I was then sent off to school to England, to a Rosminian school, where we attended NOM once a week. The Provincial of England of that Order was a Monsignor who once told me that he was certain that Card. Siri had been elected Pope. My own grandfather (Pontifical Noble Guard who guarded outside the conclave of 1958 ) used to joke about what a mess that conclave had been and how the Swiss Guards got it wrong twice. The present Provincial of the Order of Jesuits comes from my mother's family. So I grew up in a very devoted family but...
... at the time I was too young to understand or care (of this I feel and am guilty) and I allowed my reason and Faith to be diluted. I think that I failed because I was not strong but I also followed Rome's teachings unquestioningly as so many others because we had no reason to doubt or question the authority of the what we understood to be the legitimate church.
When my daughter was born I started to feel inadequate and begun searching in my heart how to be a good father and how to raise her as a good Cathollic. Simoultaneously, I felt that the present Holy Father was an apostate. So many of his affirmations were odd and weird (heretic may be another word...) until one nun in Japan (where I lived until recently) openly called Pope Francis a heretic during my daughter's baptism!!! Step by step I found my way to the FSSPX.
I guess that I was blessed with the Grace of God and opened my eyes but 40 years of indolence require time and prayer to fix as the light may be too bright to stare at, directly, at first.
So, I understand that you do not believe in heliocentrism. Am I correct?
Wow ascano, what a life you have had and continue to have. Do not feel guilty if you strayed during your life, for many of us have done the same. I went AWOL from 18 to 36 as many of us did. It was only when I got married that I realised I had to prepare for a family and returned to active service once again. Just as my parents reared me in the faith I too had a duty to do the same for my kids to come. But I returned to a NO Church and tried to adjust to the stripped churches and new Mass. Obedience has always been a tenet of Catholics so who were we the flock to criticise or accuse the priests and hierarchy, let alone the Pope. As time went on we (my wife and I) began to see something was not right. We met others in the pro-life movement who were more aware of the revolution that had occurred from Vatican II and explained how tradition had been 'crucified.' At first we were shocked, couldn't believe it and stayed 'loyal' to the popes of the time. But as more and more Modernism became evident we broke ranks and returned to the traditional Mass and never went back to our parish church again. Many of our good Catholic friends however, remained with the NO to this day.Dear cassini, it is sad to realise that your and my story are the stories of the vast majority of Catholics. Even very devout ones.
... faith in God as Creator is optional.I disagree on the consequential phrase: "...faith in God as Creator is optional" even for eliocentrists and evolutionists because science still cannot explain the origin of the universe and the spark of life and therein lies God.
I would appreciate if someone would, please, help me understand...
I have been researching and found that Paul VI actually, explicitly, said that the Council of Vatican II did not possess dogmatic or infallibility ratification.
So, if V.II does not contain dogma or absolute truths, then why does the Vatican require the SSPX to accept it to be in full communion when other rites and confessions (Anglicans, etc.) do not recognize V.II and, yet, are considered in full communion?
Specifically, which elements of V.II does the Vatican require FSSPX to recognize in order for the Vatican to proclaim that the FSSPX is again, in full communion with Rome?
And, more importantly, why would it be wrong for the FSSPX to accept full communion with the Vatican, if V.II does not carry dogmatic or infallibility ratification?
Unless a dogma or an absolute truth is proclaimed in a doctrine, we Catholics are not bound by that doctrine that raises only to the level of "consuetudine" (I don't know how to translate this from Italian) and, therefore, cannot be cause for excommunication.
Please help me understand if and where my logic is flawed.
APOSTOLIC BRIEF “IN SPIRITU SANCTO’ FOR THE CLOSING OF THE COUNCIL
DECEMBER 8, 1965 read at the closing ceremonies of Dec. 8 by Archbishop Pericle Felici, general secretary of the Second Vatican Council (http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_author/25/Second_Vatican_Council__Vatican_II_.html).
The Second Vatican Ecuмenical Council, assembled in the Holy Spirit and under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom we have declared Mother of the Church, and of St. Joseph, her glorious spouse, and of the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul, must be numbered without doubt among the greatest events of the Church. In fact it was the largest in the number of Fathers who came to the seat of Peter from every part of the world, even from those places where the hierarchy has been very recently established. It was the richest because of the questions which for four sessions have been discussed carefully and profoundly. And last of all it was the most opportune, because, bearing in mind the necessities of the present day, above all it sought to meet the pastoral needs and, nourishing the flame of charity, it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians still separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole human family.
At last all which regards the holy ecuмenical council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees, declarations and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the synod and promulgated by us. Therefore we decided to close for all intents and purposes, with our apostolic authority, this same ecuмenical council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII (http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_author/123/Pope_John_XXIII.html), which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.
We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.
Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.
I disagree on the consequential phrase: "...faith in God as Creator is optional" even for eliocentrists and evolutionists because science still cannot explain the origin of the universe and the spark of life and therein lies God.
This was the closing docuмent from Paul VI at the end of Vatican II, boldfacing added:Bellato, thank you for the excerpt. It is the same text that I found and that generated my questions in the OP.
This was the closing docuмent from Paul VI at the end of Vatican II, boldfacing added:As regards the bolded text in your quote of the closing docuмent: "...They read meanings into words which the words they hear do not say, while they fail to advert to what the words do say". - Fr. Wathen, The Great Sacrilege
And, more importantly, which specific elements does Rome contest to the FSSPX?In a word, Tradition.
As regards the bolded text in your quote of the closing docuмent: "...They read meanings into words which the words they hear do not say, while they fail to advert to what the words do say". - Fr. Wathen, The Great SacrilegeStubborn, from participating to this community's conversations, I am slowly gathering just what you highlight: V2 hurts our Church because of how bad individuals use the content of the council, rather than because of the content itself.
Although Fr. was referring to the new "mass" when he said this, what he says above is true as regards not only the closing docuмent, but is also true for probably 99% of the docuмents and teachings of V2.
Stubborn, from participating to this community's conversations, I am slowly gathering just what you highlight: V2 hurts our Church because of how bad individuals use the content of the council, rather than because of the content itself.Yes, it is doubly dangerous. If you read the closing docs of Trent vs V2's closing docs, all you can do is scratch your head at V2's, while Trent's is clear and easily understood. The use of ambiguous and multi-meaning language was and still is an essential ingredient of the enemy; "...clinging tenaciously and vainly to meaningless formulas whilst religion is allowed to go to ruin". - Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis
I also understand that this is doubly (does this word exist in English?) dangerous.
Firstly because of the bad use of the content and secondly because it is more difficult to point the finger at specific words or phrases that are wrong and conbat them, individually.
....I read some V2 papers (*) last night with my aunt.
It's one thing to misunderstand something and have to re-read it a few times before you come to understand it, but try that with V2 docs, and it is by design that you will understand it to possibly have a different meaning each time you read it.
I am afraid it is a fact ascano. Heliocentrism, long-ages and evolution are known to be the reasons why millions have no faith in God. Opinion polls have shown this. Show me where the idea that science cannot explain the origin of the universe or the spark of life ever stopped them fron rejecting a Creator? They have plenty of explanations for such things, the Universe always existed and the sun stimulated life. Before he died Stephen Hawkings, invented a scientific way of getting something from nothing.cassini... I am rather upset with you, and grateful, at the same time.
On the other hand, there are theistic heliocentrists, long agers, and evolutionists who still manage to believe in God, believing He created the world in that fashion.
Thus faith in God as Creator is optional. Not for you perhaps, but for millions of others yes.
I read some V2 papers (*) last night with my aunt.I personally do not recommend reading any of the V2 docs except perhaps for reference or evidence. Leave that to those versed well enough in the faith that they can read it without getting their brains washed.
I personally do not recommend reading any of the V2 docs except perhaps for reference or evidence. Leave that to those versed well enough in the faith that they can read it without getting their brains washed.I needed to read them. Not because I do not trust this community's comments but because I want to be responsible for my actions and beliefs.
I needed to read them. Not because I do not trust this community's comments but because I want to be responsible for my actions and beliefs.Understood. Now that you've seen what they are, avoid them. If you read those docs long enough that you're likely to lose your mind, or your faith - maybe both. Just stay away from them.
Yes, you are correct, the language is, simply put, ghastly!
[21] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=68&ch=2&l=21-#x) For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice, than after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them. [22] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=68&ch=2&l=22-#x) For, that of the true proverb has happened to them: The dog is returned to his vomit: and, The sow that was washed, to her wallowing in the mire.[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
As I suggested on another thread just now, if you want to compare teachings before and after the false council, Simon Galloways' No Crisis in the Church.Hello Nadir, I cannot find it at a reasonable price! I have been looking everywhere online. Tonight I will try looking again.
As Stubborn has justly advised, now that you have a better idea of what your are dealing in, I suggest you to give it up. You really cannot gain by reading and studying it.It is in my character to study first hand which has some drawbacks as it takes up all my free time.
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]This is not directed to you, Tommaso, but to what the new church founded in the early 60's is doing. We are to keep ourselves uncontaminated. Reading bad literature can affect/reinforce how we think and act.[/font][/size]Yes, this is a risk. it is called normalization. Goebbles (and I am sure others before him) suggested that if you say a lie, a really big lie, over and over, in the end the public will come to believe it. Also, normalization is the slow addiction to taste and opinions as presented by one's environment. Japanese tend to love raw fish, Italians tend to love pasta. That is normalization at work. Once it consolidates it becomes part of the cultural traits of a demographic.
Having had to study V2 docs ad nauseaum during my theological studies, it was a blessed relief to commit all my notes and handouts, and the V2 books to a fiery grave. A Fahrenheit 451 TradCat version. Quite the satisfying experience.(wickedly righteous grin):laugh1: :laugh2: :jester: :laugh1: :laugh2: :laugh1: :jester:
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-ub7CN-Ow9KY%2FTXMmLm7gR7I%2FAAAAAAAABJw%2F9OSIsJlEza8%2Fs1600%2FF451.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
Hello Nadir, I cannot find it at a reasonable price! I have been looking everywhere online.
A < 1-minute search revealed that Carmel-Books.org has it for $30 shipped to the U.S.Thank you! I just purchased it. I appreciated your time!