.Thanks to holysoulsacademy, this thread actually has a discussion going on:

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

Then the next thing you know, it has stuff like:

The texts of the Council contain the “cause of the grave errors” of Vatican II, where that one word, "cause" introduces a WORLD of logical difficulties that have no place in real Catholicism.

It’s interesting you make reference to this.  

I hope you don't mind my saying so, but I don't think it's any more interesting than the fact that you have noticed it.  Furthermore, your observations below are MOST HELPFUL to this discussion, for you bring a selection of appropriate references all to the fore, which are things that really ought to be front page news.  But you won't find a publication anywhere on planet earth today, that agrees with that.

Could it be that in referencing the “texts of the Council” as the cause of the errors, they are leaving room for the “spirit of the Council” as still being right.

I have NO QUESTION but that you are in hot pursuit of their hidden agenda, holysoulsacademy.  I have heard several great priests give sermons on this topic and you are the first one to make this most alarming connection.  Thank you for this contribution to the discussion!  The only thing I would add is the word "unclean":

Could it be that in referencing the “texts of the Council” as the cause of the errors, they are leaving room for the unclean spirit of Vat.II as still being right?

But your version is probably more widely acceptable, alas.

Bringing us to the statement, “Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand.”  

Could his statements be laying the groundwork to accept the idea that there is Truth in the Council, we just got it wrong because we used the wrong words?

You are sitting smack on the brink of judging their intentions, but that's okay.  Sitting on the brink is generally a pretty good point of perspective, because you get a really wide angle view of the scenery.  

One thing's for sure:  there isn't anything in the text itself that would prove otherwise.  The damage control crew could try to defend it, saying that you're being too critical, or you're taking it out of context, or you have to understand the spirit of the words, "Truth is not firstly a question of words..." &c.  

But they cannot prove that his statement is not laying the groundwork to accept the idea that there is Truth in the Council, and/or that we have just been getting it wrong because we have been using the wrong words. -- But of course, there is hope for us yet, we "poor people" (a direct quote from +Fellay) have still a chance to "see the light of reason" and to come around to the Menzingen-denizens' way of apostasy -- woops, I mean, WAY OF THINKING.

They cannot prove that, because there is nothing in the words themselves that would show that this accusation of their laying of this groundwork to be false.

I do hope Fr. Pfeiffer is reading this.

Bringing us to “hermeneutic of contnuity,” that if we contemplated and deliberated and nuanced “words” enough, we could get them to mean something that IS connected to THE TRUTH, therefore the Council “in spirit” is still right, thus it has to be accepted.

Is this where the SSPX is leading us to with this kind of language?

Has anyone told you today that you're beautiful, holysoulsacademy?  Well, you are.

I have to say, my hat's off to you, holysoulsacademy, because this is a marvelous principle you have provided here.  

The hermeneutic of continuity of Benedict XVI is perhaps the SINGLE MOST SCANDALOUS Papal docuмent in the history of the Church. It is far worse than anything in the deplorable Vat.II docuмents.  It is SO BAD because it proposes for universal acceptance the principle of insanity into the mind of the Church.

From time immemorial there has not been found, ONE sane thinker, who has said otherwise.  The ancient Greeks (before the corruption that destroyed their culture) unanimously agreed that the principle of non-contradiction was at the foundation of all intelligent thought.  For to say that something can BE as well as NOT BE at the same time leads inevitably and inexorably to utter folly and total nonsense, in a word, insanity.  

What Vat.II proposed is the contradiction of truth.  But it took until Benedict XVI's unholy ascendancy to the throne of Peter before this denial of everything good and true and beautiful about the Church would be proposed as somehow compatible with the very thing it was denying.  

He himself is on record observing that Vat.II was the FRENCH REVOLUTION IN THE CHURCH, and it is a COUNTER-SYLLABUS (referring to its denial of the Syllabus of errors of the great Pope Pius IX).

Vat.II proposed the denial of the Faith.  It proposed the utter destruction of God's divine revelation.  And then here we have the so-called hermeneutic of continuity that by playing fast and loose with WORDS, we can make the NEGATION of truth agree with truth itself, IOW, the contradiction of the principle of non-contradiction.

Effectively, yes means no and no means yes.  

But what did Our Lord teach us?  "Let your speech be yea, yea : no, no : that you fall not under judgment" (Jas. v. 12).


.

.

Thank you for your reply, The Penny Catechism.

Quote from: Neil Obstat

"Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand." ...WORDS are important, and that along with JPII, CDF head Ratzinger defended the "validity" of the Assyrian church of the East liturgy which has no words of consecration.  "If you don't have any consecration you don't have any mass." Then Ratzinger said that people are getting all hung up on words, but it's not the words, it's the community!

Thanks Neil for this angle. Sacramental Theology uses particular wording (form) for validation (matter/form/intention).

You're welcome.

As you know, the 'form' of a valid Baptism uses the same words: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." (Rather than using "I baptize thee by the grace of the Creator of the Universe and of the Triune God"), even though in both you could say that the ideas for which the words stand are essentially the same.

While it is true that the ideas are generally speaking represented in the latter, in fact, the ideas are INSUFFICIENTLY represented.  Let me explain.

The valid words for holy Baptism begin with "In the name."  What does that mean?  It means that this Baptism is being done IN something, not BY something.  There is a world of difference between those two words, in and by.  If you'd like to take your girlfriend out on a date to a movie theater, would you go in the theater or would you go by the theater?  If you want to take out a car loan at the bank would you go in the bank or would you go by the bank?  Does it make any difference?  Do you get the date or do you get the loan by the theater or by the bank?  

The words "the name" refer to the unity in substance of the Blessed Trinity, which is represented by the singular word, "God."  The word "name" is also singular, for if it were 3 gods it would be "names."  

Therefore, the first 3 words, "In the name," has a very profound meaning, NONE of which is conveyed by "by the grace," as above.  

You might consider this item a bit "nuts" but in literal fact, the words in your latter form could mean "...by the grace of the Universe...," as follows:  "I baptize thee by the grace of the Creator, and by the grace of the Universe, and by the grace of the Triune God."  The only difference is the addition of ONE COMMA after the word "Creator."  (I added "...and by the grace..." for emphasis.)  This would imply additionally that there are three different graces, that is, unless someone has drawn up a doctrine of the unity of grace even if it is of the Creator, or of the Universe, or of the Triune God.  And is the Universe also a "God?" -because it would seem that "the Creator" and "the Triune God" are a God.  Do you see there are consequences to the meaning of words?  

In one version of "the Bible" there is the word (letter) "a" added to the Gospel of St. John i. 1:  "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God."  Do you see it?  It is the penultimate word in the sentence.  With that one word, the false religion that publishes (current tense) this version, preaches polytheism.  An entire universe of bad religion and satanic perversion marches right in the front door because of one letter on one page of the whole book. Furthermore, the term, "the Creator of the Universe" is incomplete.  Satanists would say you're talking about their god, to whom the Freemasons refer as "the Great Architect of the universe."  I don't know about you, but every architect I have ever worked with (and there have been several) has always considered himself to be the creator of the projects he designs, for nobody else is thought to be any more than a means to the end of his own glory.  

And finally, the phrase "and of the Triune God" might seem quaint, but it is ambiguous, while there is nothing ambiguous about "of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," for these three names are shown to be one in substance with each other by dint of the singular number of "name" which precedes it.  "Triune God" does not specifically convey the unity of substance, even if it CAN be seen that way, as it can also be seen otherwise;  therefore, it is ambiguous.

Consequently, I reply that "the ideas for which the words stand are NOT essentially the same."

Similarly, the expression of words that are not the same, but 'in the ballpark' using altered phrasing (i.e., words of Consecration) was considered insufficient (pre-Vatican II). Or the idea of precision in wording in and of itself 'important.'

Yes, this is very true.  I took catechism classes run by priests in 1963 wherein they very specifically stated that the canon of the Mass was literally and absolutely UNTOUCHABLE.  There was no way that anyone could ever change any words of the canon, for it had been locked into its present form with the full power of the Papacy nearly 400 years ago. (It had been 393 years then, and it has been 444 years now, since Quo Primum was promulgated.)  

This ought to give newcomers some idea of the upheaval of doctrine that came AFTER the unclean spirit of Vat.II had its way with Holy Mother Church.

The questioning of different words used, has led to continued debate as to invalidity or doubt towards some of the Sacraments (in some circles). And it is this very struggle that would lend credence to 'words' in and of itself having weight.

Yes, this is true.  One thing that all true traditionalists share is the doubtfulness of the new forms of the various sacraments.  It is most interesting that Baptism is the only one they can't manage to monkey with, and it seems to me that is because of the stellar and august simplicity of its form.  How can you or why would you modify "I baptize thee, James, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost?"  

How or why is the question.  It appears there is no way to change that without changing the meaning, but WHY would anyone want to change it in the first place???

That is the question that I have found, to which nobody has the answer, regardless of whom I ask.  I say, "Can you give me one reason for changing the form of episcopal consecration?"  And you know what I usually get?  There have been times when I have actually heard a cricket chirping, when I ask that question.  I think it's my guardian angel rewarding me, in his own, subtle way!  He's a great angel.  I hope you can meet him some day.  I'd be pleased to introduce you to him.

Nobody has an answer.  I have asked NovusOrdo priests and bishops alike and they change the topic.  I will give Trad priests and bishops (like +Mark Pivarunas, +Richard Williamson and +Tissier de Malarais) the credit of pausing for a moment to attempt to answer me without changing the topic.  They say that there was no reason to change the form;  there was none whatsoever.  And then when I try to add something to that, they repeat, THERE WAS NO REASON AT ALL.  

And I think they are correct.  

One would think that to make such a serious change, there would have to be not only a reason, but a GOOD reason, but there wasn't even any BAD reason to change it.  That's another clue for newcomers.

To top it off, this subversive and SNEAKY change (Bishop Fellay hates it when you accuse him of being sneaky, probably because the truth hurts, speaking of truth) was done ONE WHOLE YEAR before the Newmass was ipso-facto-quasi-promulgated-but-not-really.  

I say that because the Newmass was never promulgated at all.  It was given all the APPEARANCE of promulgation, but, and in accord with our topic here, the WORDS that are always used for promulgation of such things are nowhere to be found in the docuмents.  Therefore, since the WORDS are missing, the IDEAS FOR WHICH THE WORDS STAND are insignificant.  The ideas are LITERALLY meaningless, null and void, just as the validity of the Newmass is arguably null and void, according to Fr. Paul Trinchard, who BTW is not sedevacantist.  


.

.

Very well said, J.Paul.  

Deception has many faces.


.