Author Topic: An SSPX priest against the deal with Rome is asking translation  (Read 1911 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline InDominoSperavi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 196
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • h
An SSPX priest against the deal with Rome is asking translation
« on: September 29, 2012, 03:26:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This article exists both in French and in Spanish. This priest insists that I manage to make it translated to English, because he thinks that it could help a lot of English speaking people. I 'm not good enough at English; I can"t do it... So perhaps one of you could translate it ? This priest would be so happy !
    Radio Cristiandad
    Quote
    AUTORIDAD DEL CONCILIO VATICANO II
     
    (resumen y adaptación de un documento del R.P. Álvaro Calderón)
     
    Ningún teólogo serio enseña que el Vaticano II pertenezca al magisterio infalible. En eso, por lo menos, hay acuerdo. A mayor abundamiento, véase por ejemplo, el discurso de apertura de Juan XXIII, la notificación del Secretariado del Concilio (16 de noviembre de 1964), el modo de los actos mismos del concilio, las repetidas afirmaciones de Pablo VI al respecto desde la clausura del Concilio: (el concilio) “ha evitado promulgar definiciones dogmáticas solemnes que comprometan la infalibilidad del magisterio eclesiástico”, sino que quiso tener “la autoridad del magisterio ordinario supremo, manifiestamente auténtico” (discurso de clausura del concilio, 7/12/65, audiencia de 12/01/66); las expresiones del Papa Juan Pablo II, que se refería al concilio solamente como “magisterio auténtico”; y, finalmente lo dicho por el mismo Papa actual (siendo Cardenal) ante nuestra Conferencia Episcopal:
     
    “La verdad es que el mismo Concilio no ha definido ningún dogma, y ha querido conscientemente expresarse en un nivel más modesto, simplemente como un Concilio pastoral”. El mismo concilio se autocalificó de “pastoral”, esto es, no dogmático; lo cual, además de haber sido una novedad, es muy relevante en cuanto a la determinación de su autoridad.
     
    a) Órganos auténticos del magisterio:
     
    Los órganos auténticos del magisterio de la Iglesia son el Papa y los obispos. Decimos «auténticos», porque participan de la autoridad divina de manera habitual y propia, mientras que hay otros órganos subsidiarios, como los miembros de las congregaciones romanas, que lo hacen de manera transeúnte y delegada. Los órganos auténticos pueden obrar de cuatro maneras:
     
    - El Papa solo.
     
    - El Papa y los obispos reunidos en concilio ecuménico.
     
    - El Papa en comunión con los obispos dispersos.
     
    - Los obispos solos.
     
    De estos cuatro modos, sólo en los tres primeros puede ejercerse el magisterio en su grado supremo, porque la plenitud de la autoridad magisterial sólo reside en el Papa.
     
    b) Clases de magisterio:
     
    b.1) Magisterio “auténtico”: es el ejercido por los órganos auténticos formalmente en cuanto tales. El magisterio auténtico se divide, a su vez, en “infalible” y “simplemente auténtico”.
     
    b.2) El magisterio “simplemente auténtico”, se da en aquellos actos en que no se pone en juego la autoridad de Cristo en modo pleno.
     
    b.3) El magisterio auténtico “infalible” se da en aquellos actos en que se pone en juego la autoridad de Cristo en modo pleno. El magisterio “infalible”, se divide en “extraordinario” y “ordinario”.
     
    b.3.1) “Magisterio infalible extraordinario (o solemne)” es aquel que puede reconocerse como tal en un único acto, considerado absolutamente y por sí mismo. Se lo llama «extraordinario» porque se da en las definiciones “ex cátedra” del Papa, y en las definiciones y anatemas de un Concilio ecuménico.
     
    b.3.2) “Magisterio infalible ordinario” es el que se da cuando la nota de infalibilidad es alcanzada no por uno sino por una serie de actos diversos de magisterio que se complementan para enseñar una misma verdad, aunque expresada con palabras o en contextos diferentes. Este es el modo de magisterio supremo ejercido sobre todo –aunque no únicamente– por el Papa y los obispos dispersos en sus respectivas diócesis, llamado «ordinario» tanto porque surge en general de la predicación cotidiana de los Pastores, como porque ha sido el modo de transmisión de la mayoría de las verdades fundamentales de la fe católica.
     
    Advirtamos que las expresiones “extraordinario” y “ordinario” se prestan a confusión, porque el concilio ecuménico es “órgano extraordinario” del magisterio supremo y en este sentido podría decirse que todo su magisterio es “extraordinario”; sin embargo, no todos sus actos son infalibles por “modo extraordinario” y algunos pueden ser infalibles por el “modo ordinario”, como explicamos más adelante. Tomamos entonces estos dos nombres en su sentido más estricto de calificativos de la infalibilidad, no del órgano magisterial.
     
    c) Criterios para determinar la autoridad magisterial:
     
    El Concilio Vaticano I definió los criterios para juzgar cuándo se da el “magisterio infalible extraordinario” del Papa solo, y como el magisterio del concilio ecuménico goza de la misma infalibilidad que las definiciones “ex cátedra” del Romano Pontífice, los criterios para juzgarlo son análogos:
     
    1° Sujeto: el Concilio debe ser legítimo, efectivamente convocado, presidido y confirmado por el Papa para poseer en potencia la autoridad magisterial suprema; y para ejercerla en acto debe expedirse en cuanto tal.
     
    2° Materia: debe tratarse de una doctrina de fe o moral; aunque el magisterio sólo se ejerce en materia que guarda conexión necesaria con la Revelación, de modo directo (objeto primario) o indirecto (objeto secundario).
     
    3° Destinatarios u oyentes: debe dirigirse la enseñanza a la universalidad de los fieles: no a alguna diócesis o persona en particular, ni tampoco a los que no hacen profesión de fe católica.
     
    4° Intención: la sentencia debe ser propuesta para que los fieles la reciban como infaliblemente cierta: con fe divina, si el objeto es Revelado; o excluyendo la posibilidad de error si sólo es materia conexa con el Depósito de la fe. Esta intención debe ser manifiesta, ya por el texto, ya por el contexto.
     
    Un Concilio ejerce el “magisterio infalible por modo ordinario” en aquellas sentencias que, aunque consideradas en sí mismas no alcanzan manifiestamente las características señaladas para el magisterio infalible extraordinario; consideradas, sin embargo, en relación con las enseñanzas anteriores de los Concilios y de los Papas, o con la enseñanza de la universalidad de los obispos en sus diócesis, o con la creencia universal de los fieles, sí alcanzan características análogas a las cuatro señaladas.
     
    Todo el resto del magisterio de un Concilio ecuménico legítimo que se ejerce en cuanto tal y que no alcanza el grado manifiesto de infalible por modo extraordinario, es “magisterio simplemente auténtico”.
     
    Puestos los principios universales para juzgar un acto de magisterio conciliar, pasemos ahora a ver cómo se ejerció de hecho la autoridad en el Concilio Vaticano II.
     
    ¿El concilio dio un “magisterio infalible extraordinario”?
     
    El ejercicio del magisterio en un concilio depende formal y últimamente del modo como el Romano Pontífice compromete en él su propia autoridad. Ahora bien, en el Concilio Vaticano II no se dio “magisterio infalible extraordinario”; porque existe, un defecto grave de intención de proponerlo como tal. Este punto no parece ofrecer mayor discusión porque no sólo faltó la intención explícita de imponer ninguna sentencia doctrinal, sino que -contrariamente- explícitamente se manifestó la intención de no imponer ninguna doctrina con infalibilidad.
     
    ¿El concilio dio un “magisterio simplemente auténtico”?
     
    La autoridad divina o asistencia del Espíritu Santo, no se compromete en el mismo grado en los diversos actos de magisterio auténtico, pudiendo ir de casi plena a casi nula.  Ahora bien, quien busca alcanzar la verdad por el “diálogo”, no pretende enseñar como maestro, porque el diálogo propiamente dicho se opone al magisterio como a su contrario. Pero la idea del concilio fue poner a éste en diálogo con la Iglesia, las religiones y el mundo. No hubo, por lo tanto, ejercicio del magisterio formal y explícito. Es más, como la versión neomodernista del sensus fidei enseña que la voz del Pueblo es la voz de Dios y que esta voz habla por boca de los neoteólogos, la dinámica liberal impresa en el Concilio puso a los «peritos» como “maestros de los obispos”. Ahora bien, la asistencia del Espíritu Santo no está prometida los teólogos sino a la jerarquía. Por lo tanto, si ésta no se apoya en la autoridad de su propio carisma sino que, invirtiendo el orden, se hace discípula de la “nueva teología”, el magisterio que resulta de tal asamblea poco tiene de divino.
     
    Este vicio que afectó el Concilio implica, entonces, un defecto esencial que destruye las cuatro notas de discernimiento de la autoridad magisterial, por efecto dominó:
     
    1° Intención: el Concilio no quiso imponer un magisterio sino proponer un diálogo.
     
    2° Destinatarios u oyentes: en el diálogo debía intervenir toda la humanidad y entonces dirigió su voz no sólo a los fieles católicos “sino a todos los hombres” (Gaudium et spes n° 2).
     
    3° Materia: en su voluntad de diálogo, el Concilio aceptó opiniones modernas que no proceden de la Revelación sino de la Revolución.
     
    4° Sujeto: sumisos al diálogo, los Papas no confirmaron el Concilio subordinándolo a su carisma personal, in persona Christi, sino subordinándose ellos al sensus fidei, obrando entonces in persona Populi Dei y, en cierta manera, in persona Humanitatis.
     
    En conclusión, el Vaticano II no es “magisterio infalible”, ni siquiera “meramente auténtico”; lo que, aunque trágico y sorprendente, tiene un lado muy positivo: dejar abierta la puerta para una futura declaración de nulidad.


    Now, in French :
    Antimodernisme. info
    Quote

       
       Autorité du Concile Vatican II    
       

       
     (Résumé et adaptation d´un document de M. l´abbé Alvaro Calderón)


    Aucun théologien sérieux n´enseigne que Vatican II appartienne au magistère infaillible. Sur ce point au moins, tout le monde s´accorde. Pour confirmation, on peut consulter par exemple le discours d´ouverture de Jean XXIII ; la note du Secrétariat du Concile (16 XI 1964) ; le mode lui-même des documents du Concile ; les affirmations répétées de Paul VI sur ce sujet après le Concile : le concile « a évité de promulguer des définitions dogmatiques solennelles qui engagent l´infaillibilité du magistère ecclésiastique », voulant avoir « l´autorité du magistère ordinaire suprême, manifestement authentique » (discours de clôture du concile 07 XII 1965 ; audience du 12 I 1966) ; les expressions du Pape Jean Paul II, qui faisait référence au concile seulement comme « magistère authentique », enfin, ce qu´en a dit le Pape actuel lui-même, alors Cardinal, devant la Conférence épiscopale d´Argentine : « la vérité c´est que le Concile n´a défini aucun dogme, et a voulu consciemment s´exprimer à un niveau plus modeste, simplement comme un concile pastoral ». Le Concile lui-même s´est d´ailleurs auto qualifié comme « pastoral », c´est à dire non dogmatique, ce qui, en plus du fait d´avoir constitué une nouveauté, est extrêmement intéressant quant à la détermination de son autorité.

    1. Organes authentiques du Magistère

    Les organes authentiques du Magistère de l´Église sont le Pape et les évêques. Nous disons « authentique », parce qu´ils participent de l’autorité divine de manière habituelle et propre, tandis qu´existent d´autres organes subsidiaires, comme par exemple les membres des congrégations romaines, qui le font de façon transitoire et déléguée. Les organes authentiques peuvent agir de quatre façons différentes :

    * Le Pape seul.
    * Le Pape et les évêques réunis en concile œcuménique.
    * Le Pape en communion avec les évêques dispersés.
    * Les évêques seuls.

    De ces quatre modes, seuls les trois premiers peuvent prétendre au titre de magistère suprême, parce que la plénitude de l’autorité magistérielle réside seulement dans le Pape.

    2. Types de Magistères

    1. Magistère authentique : c´est celui exercé par les organes authentiques en tant que tels formellement. Le magistère authentique se divise à son tour en « infaillible » et « simplement authentique ».

    1.1 Magistère authentique infaillible : s´exerce dans le cas d´actes qui mettent pleinement en jeu l´autorité du Christ. Il se divise à son tour en « extraordinaire » et « ordinaire ».

    1.1.1 Magistère authentique infaillible extraordinaire (ou solennel) : C´est celui qui peut être reconnu comme tel en un acte unique, considéré absolument et par lui-même. On l´appelle « extraordinaire » parce qu´il se produit dans les définitions « ex cathedra » du Pape, ainsi que dans les définitions et anathèmes d´un Concile œcuménique.

    1.1.2 Magistère authentique infaillible ordinaire : C´est celui qui peut être reconnu, non par un acte unique, mais par une série d’actes divers du magistère qui se complètent pour enseigner une seule et même vérité, bien qu´exprimée avec des mots et en des circonstances différents. C´est le mode de magistère suprême exercé surtout, mais pas uniquement, par le Pape et les évêques dispersés dans leurs diocèses respectifs, et qui est appelé « ordinaire » tant parce qu´il surgit de la prédication quotidienne des Pasteurs, que parce qu´il a été le mode de transmission de la plus grande partie des vérités fondamentales de la foi catholique.

    2. Magistère simplement authentique : c´est celui qui s´exerce dans tous les actes dans lesquels l´autorité du Christ n´entre pas pleinement en jeu.

    Nous avertissons que les expressions « extraordinaire » et « ordinaire » prêtent à confusion, parce que le concile œcuménique est un « organe extraordinaire » du magistère suprême et en ce sens on pourrait dire que tout son magistère est « extraordinaire » ; mais, pour autant, tous ses actes ne sont pas infaillibles « par mode extraordinaire » et quelques-uns peuvent être infaillibles « par mode ordinaire », comme nous l´expliquons ci-après. Nous prenons donc ces deux termes en son sens le plus strict, comme qualificatifs de l´infaillibilité, et non de l´organe magistériel.

    3. Critères pour déterminer l´autorité magistérielle

    Le Concile Vatican I a défini les critères qui permettent de reconnaître quand s´exerce le « magistère infaillible extraordinaire » du Pape seul ; et comme le magistère du concile œcuménique jouit de la même infaillibilité que les définitions « ex cathedra » du Pontife Romain, les critères pour en juger sont analogues :

    1o – Le sujet : le concile doit être légitime, effectivement convoqué, présidé et confirmé par le Pape pour posséder in potentia l´autorité magistérielle suprême ; et pour la posséder in actu il doit se dérouler effectivement de cette manière.

    2 o – La matière : il doit s´agir d´une doctrine de foi ou de morale ; le magistère s´exerce seulement sur des matières qui ont une relation nécessaire avec la Révélation, directement (objet primaire) ou indirectement (objet secondaire).

    3 o – Les destinataires ou auditeurs : l´enseignement doit être destiné à l´universalité des fidèles, c´est à dire non à un diocèse ou personne en particulier, et non plus à ceux qui ne professent pas la foi catholique.

    4 o – L´intention : la sentence doit être proposée pour que les fidèles la reçoivent comme infailliblement certaine, par un acte de foi divine, si l´objet en est la Révélation, ou en excluant la possibilité d´erreur s´il s´agit simplement d´une matière connexe avec le dépôt révélé. Cette intention doit être manifeste, soit de par le texte, soit de par le contexte.

    Un concile exerce le « magistère infaillible par mode ordinaire » dans le cas de sentences qui, considérées en elles-mêmes, n´atteignent manifestement pas les caractéristiques requises pour le magistère infaillible extraordinaire, mais qui cependant, considérées en relation avec les enseignements antérieurs des Conciles et des Papes, ou avec l´enseignement de l´universalité des évêques en leurs diocèses, ou avec la croyance universelle des fidèles, atteignent des caractéristiques analogues aux quatre précédemment signalées.

    Tout le reste du magistère d´un concile œcuménique légitime qui s´exerce comme tel et qui n´atteint le degré manifeste d´infaillibilité par mode extraordinaire est du « magistère simplement authentique ».

    Une fois posés les principes universels qui permettent de juger un acte de magistère conciliaire, examinons maintenant comment s´est exercé de fait l´autorité au Concile Vatican II.

    Le Concile a-t-il donné un « magistère infaillible extraordinaire » ?

    L´exercice du magistère dans un concile dépend formellement et en dernier recours du mode selon lequel le Pontife Romain y engage son autorité. Or, au Concile Vatican II il n´y pas eu exercice du « magistère infaillible extraordinaire », en raison du grave défaut d´intention de le proposer comme tel. Ce point ne paraît pas souffrir de discussion parce que, non seulement il manque l´intention explicite d´imposer une quelconque sentence doctrinal, mais encore, a été manifestée l´intention, explicite et contraire, de ne vouloir imposer aucune doctrine en vertu de l´infaillibilité.

    Le concile a-t-il exercé un « magistère simplement authentique » ?

    L´autorité divine ou assistance de l´Esprit Saint n´est pas engagée selon le même degré dans les divers actes du magistère authentique, pouvant aller de quasiment pleine à quasiment nulle. Or celui qui recherche la vérité au moyen du « dialogue », ne prétend pas enseigner comme maître, parce que le dialogue proprement dit s´oppose au magistère comme à son contraire. Mais l´idée du concile fut de se mettre en état de dialogue avec l´Église, les religions et le monde. Il n´y eut pas, par conséquent, d´exercice du magistère formel et explicite. Bien plus : comme la version néo-moderniste du sensus fidei enseigne que la voix du peuple est la voix de Dieu, et que cette voix parle par la bouche des néo-théologiens, la dynamique libérale imprimée dans le concile a placé les « experts » comme « maître des évêques ». Or, l´assistance du Saint Esprit n´est pas promise aux théologiens mais bien à la hiérarchie. Par conséquent, si celle-ci ne s´appuie pas sur l´autorité de son propre charisme, mais au contraire, inversant l´ordre de choses, se fait l´élève de la « nouvelle théologie », le magistère qui résulte d´une telle assemblée ne peut être que fort peu divin.

    Ce vice qui a affecté le concile implique alors un défaut essentiel qui détruit les quatre notes de discernement de l´autorité magistérielle, par un effet de domino :

    1 o – L´intention : le concile ne voulut pas imposer un magistère, mais proposer un dialogue.

    2 o – Les destinataires : dans le dialogue devait intervenir toute l´humanité, et donc il a dirigé sa voix, non aux seuls fidèles catholiques, mais « à tous les hommes » (GS n o 2).

    3 o – La matière : dans sa volonté de dialogue, le concile a accepté des opinions modernes qui ne procèdent de la Révélation, mais bien de la Révolution.

    4 o – Le sujet : soumis au dialogue, les Papes n´ont pas confirmé le concile, le subordonnant à son charisme personnel, in persona Christi, mais au contraire, ils se sont soumis eux-mêmes au sensus fidei, agissant donc in persona populi Dei, et même, en certaine façon, in persona Humanitatis.

    En conclusion, Vatican II n´est pas un acte du « magistère infaillible », ni même « purement authentique » ; ceci, bien que tragique et surprenant, a cependant un côté très positif : laisser la porte ouverte à une future déclaration de nullité.
     


    Thank you in advance for what you will do for the good cause ! IDS
     
       
     
     
     
     
     
     

    Offline Cristero

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 40
    • Reputation: +128/-1
    • Gender: Male
    An SSPX priest against the deal with Rome is asking translation
    « Reply #1 on: September 29, 2012, 11:58:23 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Hi guys! Rushed as usual but here is a translation of Fr. Calderon's article:

    Authority of Vatican II

    (Summarized and adapted from a paper of Rev. Álvaro Calderón)

    No serious theologian teaches that Vatican II belongs to the infallible magisterium. There is in this, at least, agreement. For further proof, see for example, the opening speech of John XXIII, the notification of the Secretariat of the Council (16 November 1964), the very way the council acts, the repeated claims of Paul VI after the close of the Council; (the council) "avoided enacting solemn dogmatic definitions that would compromise the infallibility of the Church’s Magisterium", but wanted to have "the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium, manifestly authentic" (closing speech at the council, 12/07/65 , audience 12/01/66) how Pope John Paul II talked about it, referring to the council only as "authentic teaching" and finally what has been said by the current Pope (when he was Cardinal) to our Episcopal Conference:

    "The truth is that the same Council did not define any dogma, and consciously wanted to express itself at a more modest level, as a merely pastoral council." The same council called itself "pastoral", that is, non-dogmatic, which, besides being a novelty, is very relevant in the determination of its authority.

    a) Authentic vehicles of the magisterium:

    The authentic vehicles of the Church’s magisterium are the Pope and the bishops. We say "authentic" because they participate in the divine authority in a proper and habitual way and while there are other subsidiary bodies, like the members of the Roman congregations, they do so in a transient and delegated way. The authentic magisterium can work in four ways:

    - the Pope alone.

    - The Pope and the bishops gathered in ecumenical council.

    - Pope in communion with the bishops throughout the world.

    - The bishops alone.

    Of these four modes, only in the first three can the magisterium be exercised in its highest degree, because the fullness of the teaching authority resides only in the Pope.

    b) The types of magisterium:

    b.1)  "authentic" Magisterium is formally exercised by authentic bodies as such. The authentic magisterium is divided, in turn, into "infallible" and "simply true".

    b.2) The "simply true" Magisterium , occurs in those acts where the authority of Christ  is not put at stake in full mode.

    b.3) The authentic "infallible" magisterium occurs in those acts in which compromises the authority of Christ in full mode. The"infallible" Magisterium , is divided into "extraordinary" and "ordinary".

    b.3.1) "extraordinary infallible magisterium (or formal)" is one that can be recognized as such in a single act, considered absolutely and in itself. It's called "extraordinary" because it is found in the definitions given  "ex cathedra" by the Pope, and the definitions and anathemas of an ecumenical council.

    b.3.2) "infallible ordinary Magisterium" is given when the note of infallibility is achieved not by one but by a series of different acts of teaching that work together to teach the same truth, though expressed in different words or contexts . This mode of supreme magisterium is exercised especially-but not exclusively-by the Pope and the bishops scattered in their respective dioceses, and is called "ordinary" because it occurs in both the general daily preaching of pastors, and because it has been the way most of the fundamental truths of the Catholic faith have been transmitted.

    Notice that the terms "extraordinary" and "ordinary" are confusing, because the ecumenical council is an "extraordinary body" of the supreme magisterium and in this sense it could be said that all its teaching is "extraordinary", nonetheless not all its acts are infallible in the "extraordinary way" and some may be infallible in the "ordinary way", as explained below. We will use these two names in the strictest sense of descriptions of infallibility, not of the magisterial body.

    c) Criteria for determining the teaching authority:

    The First Vatican Council defined the criteria for judging when the "extraordinary infallible magisterium" of the Pope himself exists, and how the teaching of an ecumenical council enjoys the same infallibility as the "ex cathedra" definitions of the Roman Pontiff. The criteria for judging are analogous:

    1 Subject: the Council must be legitimate, properly convened, chaired and confirmed by the Pope in order to have the possibility of possessing the power of supreme teaching authority, and in order to exercise it in deed as such.

    2 Matter: should be a doctrine of faith or morals, though the magisterium is only exercised in matter which has a connection with Revelation, directly (primary object) or indirectly (secondary object).

    3  Recipients or listeners: the teaching must be addressed to the universality of the faithful not to any particular diocese or person, nor to those who do not profess the Catholic faith.

    4  Intention: the statement must be given so that the faithful accept it as infallibly certain: by divine faith, if the object is Revealed, or excluding the possibility of error if only a matter related to the deposit of faith. This intention must be manifested, both by the text and the context.

    A council exercises the "infallible magisterium in the ordinary way" in those decrees, which though considered in themselves do not have sufficiently the features clearly marked for extraordinary infallible teaching; considered, however, in connection with the previous teachings of the Councils and the Popes, or the teaching of the universality of the bishops in their dioceses, or the universal belief of the faithful,  they do have analogous characteristics to the four mentioned.

    All the rest of the teachings of a legitimate ecumenical council as such which does not have the level of infallible teaching in the extraordinary way, is "simply authentic magisterium".

    Given the universal principles for judging an act of conciliar magisterium, let us now see how authority was actually exercised in the Second Vatican Council.

    Does the council gave an "extraordinary infallible magisterium"?

    The exercise of magisterium in a council depends formally and ultimately on how the Roman Pontiff invests his own authority in it. Now, in the Second Vatican Council there was no "infallible extraordinary magisterium" because there was a serious lack of intention to propose it as such. This point does not seem to offer more discussion because not only lacked the explicit intention of imposing any doctrinal statement, but the contrary-explicitly-stated intention not to impose any doctrine infallibly.

    Does the council gave a "simply authentic magisterium"?

    The divine authority or assistance of the Holy Ghost is not committed to the same degree in the various acts of authentic magisterium and can go from almost full to almost zero. Now, who seeks to reach the truth by "dialogue" does not intend to teach as an authority, because dialogue itself is opposed to the magisterium as its contrary. But the idea of ​​the council was to put itself in dialogue with the Church, other religions and the world. There was, therefore, no exercise of formal and explicit magisterium. Moreover, as the neo-modernist version of the sensus fidei teaches that the voice of the people is the voice of God and that this voice speaks through the neo-theologians, liberal dynamics imposed on the council made the "experts" "masters of the bishops ". However, the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not promised to theologians but to the hierarchy. Therefore, if it is not supported by the authority of its own charisma but, in reverse, is a disciple of the "new theology", the teaching that results from such an assembly has little of the divine about it.

    This defect affecting the Council implies, then, a fundamental flaw that destroys the four notes of discernment of teaching authority, by domino effect:

    1  Intention: The Council declined to impose a magisterium but to propose a dialogue.

    2  recipients or hearers: all mankind should intervene in this dialogue and so the council directed its voice not only to the Catholic faithful "but to all men" (Gaudium et Spes, n ° 2).

    3  matter: in its desire for dialogue, the Council accepted that modern views of revelation but come the revolution.

    4  Subject: submitting to dialogue, the Popes did not confirm the Council, i.e.subordinating it to their personal charisma, in persona Christi, but subordinating themselves to the sensus fidei, and acting in persona Populi Dei and, in a way, in persona Humanitatis.

    In conclusion, the Vatican is not "infallible magisterium" or even "merely authentic"; which, though tragic and surprising, has a very positive side: it leaves the door open for a future declaration of nullity.


    Offline stgobnait

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1346
    • Reputation: +941/-54
    • Gender: Female
    An SSPX priest against the deal with Rome is asking translation
    « Reply #2 on: September 29, 2012, 12:10:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • thank you for the kindness to translate...

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1368
    • Reputation: +1322/-139
    • Gender: Female
    An SSPX priest against the deal with Rome is asking translation
    « Reply #3 on: September 29, 2012, 03:27:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cristero
    Hi guys! Rushed as usual but here is a translation of Fr. Calderon's article:

    Authority of Vatican II

    (Summarized and adapted from a paper of Rev. Álvaro Calderón)

    No serious theologian teaches that Vatican II belongs to the infallible magisterium. There is in this, at least, agreement. For further proof, see for example, the opening speech of John XXIII, the notification of the Secretariat of the Council (16 November 1964), the very way the council acts, the repeated claims of Paul VI after the close of the Council; (the council) "avoided enacting solemn dogmatic definitions that would compromise the infallibility of the Church’s Magisterium", but wanted to have "the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium, manifestly authentic" (closing speech at the council, 12/07/65 , audience 12/01/66) how Pope John Paul II talked about it, referring to the council only as "authentic teaching" and finally what has been said by the current Pope (when he was Cardinal) to our Episcopal Conference:

    "The truth is that the same Council did not define any dogma, and consciously wanted to express itself at a more modest level, as a merely pastoral council." The same council called itself "pastoral", that is, non-dogmatic, which, besides being a novelty, is very relevant in the determination of its authority.

    a) Authentic vehicles of the magisterium:

    The authentic vehicles of the Church’s magisterium are the Pope and the bishops. We say "authentic" because they participate in the divine authority in a proper and habitual way and while there are other subsidiary bodies, like the members of the Roman congregations, they do so in a transient and delegated way. The authentic magisterium can work in four ways:

    - the Pope alone.

    - The Pope and the bishops gathered in ecumenical council.

    - Pope in communion with the bishops throughout the world.

    - The bishops alone.

    Of these four modes, only in the first three can the magisterium be exercised in its highest degree, because the fullness of the teaching authority resides only in the Pope.

    b) The types of magisterium:

    b.1)  "authentic" Magisterium is formally exercised by authentic bodies as such. The authentic magisterium is divided, in turn, into "infallible" and "simply true".

    b.2) The "simply true" Magisterium , occurs in those acts where the authority of Christ  is not put at stake in full mode.

    b.3) The authentic "infallible" magisterium occurs in those acts in which compromises the authority of Christ in full mode. The"infallible" Magisterium , is divided into "extraordinary" and "ordinary".

    b.3.1) "extraordinary infallible magisterium (or formal)" is one that can be recognized as such in a single act, considered absolutely and in itself. It's called "extraordinary" because it is found in the definitions given  "ex cathedra" by the Pope, and the definitions and anathemas of an ecumenical council.

    b.3.2) "infallible ordinary Magisterium" is given when the note of infallibility is achieved not by one but by a series of different acts of teaching that work together to teach the same truth, though expressed in different words or contexts . This mode of supreme magisterium is exercised especially-but not exclusively-by the Pope and the bishops scattered in their respective dioceses, and is called "ordinary" because it occurs in both the general daily preaching of pastors, and because it has been the way most of the fundamental truths of the Catholic faith have been transmitted.

    Notice that the terms "extraordinary" and "ordinary" are confusing, because the ecumenical council is an "extraordinary body" of the supreme magisterium and in this sense it could be said that all its teaching is "extraordinary", nonetheless not all its acts are infallible in the "extraordinary way" and some may be infallible in the "ordinary way", as explained below. We will use these two names in the strictest sense of descriptions of infallibility, not of the magisterial body.

    c) Criteria for determining the teaching authority:

    The First Vatican Council defined the criteria for judging when the "extraordinary infallible magisterium" of the Pope himself exists, and how the teaching of an ecumenical council enjoys the same infallibility as the "ex cathedra" definitions of the Roman Pontiff. The criteria for judging are analogous:

    1 Subject: the Council must be legitimate, properly convened, chaired and confirmed by the Pope in order to have the possibility of possessing the power of supreme teaching authority, and in order to exercise it in deed as such.

    2 Matter: should be a doctrine of faith or morals, though the magisterium is only exercised in matter which has a connection with Revelation, directly (primary object) or indirectly (secondary object).

    3  Recipients or listeners: the teaching must be addressed to the universality of the faithful not to any particular diocese or person, nor to those who do not profess the Catholic faith.

    4  Intention: the statement must be given so that the faithful accept it as infallibly certain: by divine faith, if the object is Revealed, or excluding the possibility of error if only a matter related to the deposit of faith. This intention must be manifested, both by the text and the context.

    A council exercises the "infallible magisterium in the ordinary way" in those decrees, which though considered in themselves do not have sufficiently the features clearly marked for extraordinary infallible teaching; considered, however, in connection with the previous teachings of the Councils and the Popes, or the teaching of the universality of the bishops in their dioceses, or the universal belief of the faithful,  they do have analogous characteristics to the four mentioned.

    All the rest of the teachings of a legitimate ecumenical council as such which does not have the level of infallible teaching in the extraordinary way, is "simply authentic magisterium".

    Given the universal principles for judging an act of conciliar magisterium, let us now see how authority was actually exercised in the Second Vatican Council.

    Does the council gave an "extraordinary infallible magisterium"?

    The exercise of magisterium in a council depends formally and ultimately on how the Roman Pontiff invests his own authority in it. Now, in the Second Vatican Council there was no "infallible extraordinary magisterium" because there was a serious lack of intention to propose it as such. This point does not seem to offer more discussion because not only lacked the explicit intention of imposing any doctrinal statement, but the contrary-explicitly-stated intention not to impose any doctrine infallibly.

    Does the council gave a "simply authentic magisterium"?

    The divine authority or assistance of the Holy Ghost is not committed to the same degree in the various acts of authentic magisterium and can go from almost full to almost zero. Now, who seeks to reach the truth by "dialogue" does not intend to teach as an authority, because dialogue itself is opposed to the magisterium as its contrary. But the idea of ​​the council was to put itself in dialogue with the Church, other religions and the world. There was, therefore, no exercise of formal and explicit magisterium. Moreover, as the neo-modernist version of the sensus fidei teaches that the voice of the people is the voice of God and that this voice speaks through the neo-theologians, liberal dynamics imposed on the council made the "experts" "masters of the bishops ". However, the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not promised to theologians but to the hierarchy. Therefore, if it is not supported by the authority of its own charisma but, in reverse, is a disciple of the "new theology", the teaching that results from such an assembly has little of the divine about it.

    This defect affecting the Council implies, then, a fundamental flaw that destroys the four notes of discernment of teaching authority, by domino effect:

    1  Intention: The Council declined to impose a magisterium but to propose a dialogue.

    2  recipients or hearers: all mankind should intervene in this dialogue and so the council directed its voice not only to the Catholic faithful "but to all men" (Gaudium et Spes, n ° 2).

    3  matter: in its desire for dialogue, the Council accepted that modern views of revelation but come the revolution.

    4  Subject: submitting to dialogue, the Popes did not confirm the Council, i.e.subordinating it to their personal charisma, in persona Christi, but subordinating themselves to the sensus fidei, and acting in persona Populi Dei and, in a way, in persona Humanitatis.

    In conclusion, the Vatican is not "infallible magisterium" or even "merely authentic"; which, though tragic and surprising, has a very positive side: it leaves the door open for a future declaration of nullity.


    Thank you, Cristero, and Fr. Calderon. Excellent article and translation. VII indeed "leaves the door open for a future declaration of nullity". Please God it may not be too long.
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)

    Offline InDominoSperavi

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 196
    • Reputation: +0/-0
      • h
    An SSPX priest against the deal with Rome is asking translation
    « Reply #4 on: September 30, 2012, 02:34:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thank you very much, Cristero. I' m going to make publish this text as much as possible... God bless you !


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18173
    • Reputation: +8255/-635
    • Gender: Male
    An SSPX priest against the deal with Rome is asking translation
    « Reply #5 on: September 30, 2012, 10:07:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is a useful article for keeping the various levels of authority in context.

    It's just a start, but an important start.

    I wonder how many sedevacantists will still refuse to acknowledge the Pope
    after the Collegial Consecration of Russia and the subsequent conversion of
    Russia? How many will persist with their canard that the bishops were not
    valid and the pope wasn't the pope?
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

     

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