Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on July 12, 2013, 12:00:33 PM
-
CI-
On several occassions in the recent past, I have accused Bishop Fellay of violating Catholic doctrine in his April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration.
At issue was the following provision contained therein:
"4. The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens - in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit - certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated(8)."
As I explained to an eminant, unnamed SSPX priest in private discourse:
"My primary lingering concern is whether Bishop Fellay's doctrinal declaration violated Catholic doctrine in accepting the idea that V2 is contained implicitly in tradition, and that those areas which cant be reconciled must nevertheless be interpreted in a compatible manner forcibly.
The reason is that this seems to be both the acceptance of the heretical Article 2 of Dignitatis Humanae (which was not exempted from this blanket acceptance of V2 being contained implicitly in tradition), as well as an acceptance of the hermeneutic of continuity."
The response of the priest (who has refused permission to let me identify him, or even quote him directly, but gave permission for me to paraphrase) was that:
1) He was in full agreement that an explicit, blanket acceptance of all the doctrines of V2 would indeed represent a doctrinal compromise, because the docuмents themselves contain errors;
2) But he says this is not the case;
3) The language of the Declaration says, " the Council "clarifies - i.e. deepens and makes more explicit over time - certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church that are implicitly present in them or not yet formulated conceptually."
4) The Declaration does not state that all the docuмents or doctrines of V2 do this;
5) Thus, the inclusion of the words "certain aspects" save this provision from being an unacceptable/heretical statement or doctrinal compromise, as the only reason for their inclusion would be to avoid giving a blanket acceptance of all the doctrines of V2.
6) And therefore, they also save it from representing an acceptance of the hermeneutic of continuity.
Now, certainly I believe Bishop Fellay used diplomatic language in this provision, and hoped it would be acceptable to both modernist and traditionalist.
But that Rome did not accept it seems to evince that they too realized this provision was not a blanket acceptance of V2, and this explains why they came back with a specific requirement that all the docs of V2 be explicitly accepted before any accord could take place.
I hope that the educated readers on this forum will not see in this specific retraction a laying down of arms, but a simple act in justice, made unavoidable from the explanation given.
On this basis, Your Excellency, I apologize for my previous accusations that you had betrayed the Faith on this count.
I remain an honest man.
Sincerely,
Sean Johnson
-
On several occassions in the recent past, I have accused Bishop Fellay of violating Catholic doctrine in his April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration. [...]
Now, certainly I believe Bishop Fellay used diplomatic language in this provision, and hoped it would be acceptable to both modernist and traditionalist.
That is another way of saying that +Fellay used ambiguity. This could be justified on some occasions, but it is ambiguous language acceptable when declaring doctrine?
-
On several occassions in the recent past, I have accused Bishop Fellay of violating Catholic doctrine in his April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration. [...]
Now, certainly I believe Bishop Fellay used diplomatic language in this provision, and hoped it would be acceptable to both modernist and traditionalist.
That is another way of saying that +Fellay used ambiguity. This could be justified on some occasions, but it is ambiguous language acceptable when declaring doctrine?
I disagree:
Ambiguity is the use of language capable of disparate meaning.
"Certain aspects" is not an ambiguous phrase:
It stands in clear contradistinction to "all aspects."
I definately agree that clearer language more akin to the June 27, 2013 "Declaration of the Three Bishops" ought to have been used.
-
Oh, come on SeanJohnson. Spend one month in Mexico or Brazil or France and they will explain to you what DDD (my other post today) is. Let me know if you need precise addresses of the contemplative monks who will explain this to you. Only thing they do day long: PRAY.
-
Oh, come on SeanJohnson. Spend one month in Mexico or Brazil or France and they will explain to you what DDD (my other post today) is. Let me know if you need precise addresses of the contemplative monks who will explain this to you. Only thing they do day long: PRAY.
Huh?
-
It is really just this simple:
A distinction (i.e., "certain aspects") was made which I missed.
The fault was mine.
If you still think Paragraph #4 represents an acceptance of all the docuмents and teachings of Vatican II, and therefore the hermeneutic of continuity, you certainly cannot make that argument from "certain aspects."
-
"On this basis, Your Excellency, I apologize for my previous accusations that you had betrayed the Faith on this count". :surprised:
SeanJohnson. A simpler advice than to travel abroad: read all ECs. If these reading does not convince you...The careful reading/listening to all ECs, +W, Father Faure, Father Pfeiffer, and all those signing the Vienna Declaration,
AND
the careful reading of SSPX sites
have convinced me throughout the years that I, myself, don't need to apologize for anything I had said or written. But, I only know my own background. So, I am really sorry if I am misunderstanding you, but for myself it is impossible for me to find the grain of cyanide in the soup...
-
What I don’t like about that provision is the fact that they give Vatican II a status which it doesn’t deserve. Here is what Father Girouard has to say about that provision on his website Sacrificium.org.
"We find in this text, not surprisingly, what we have known about for a while, since it was revealed by Fr. Pfluger on 5th June 2012, at Fanjeaux I think, and which is in itself an abomination [paragraph 3.4] Saying that Vatican II makes explicit “certain elements” contained implicitly in the entire Tradition of the Church means we have just put this pastoral Council (which was diverted and hijacked by the Freemasons and modernists) on the same level as all the other legitimate doctrinal Councils. When you think about it, Vatican II is more akin to a secret get-together of plotters and schemers than a true Council, even if it was presided over and approved by two Popes, because these two Popes made illegitimate use of it: they used it to make a revolution in the Church. That’s why I call it a plotters’ get-together. The first thing a Catholic Pope will to will be to declare the Council illegitimate and void, as was the case with several oriental councils at the start of the Church."
-
The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens - in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit - certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated
No one with reading comprehension can accept this.
How can you fall for their hair-splitting sophistry?
WAKE UP! Don't let scrupulous submisssion to these clowns trip you up!
It's saying Vatican II was of God, that it leads us to a true intepretation of aspects of the Faith.
Did they give an example of what it is that Vatican II deepens and makes more explicit?
The more one analyzes the docuмents of Vatican II, and the more one analyzes their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realizes that what is at stake is not merely superficial errors, a few mistakes, ecuмenism, religious liberty, collegiality, a certain Liberalism, but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism.
How can such a thing then deepen and subsequently make more explicit certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present?
Give me a break!
The vicious lying priests who have venomous freemasons foreword books for them and have Zionists represent Archbishop Lefebvre's choice for bishops - stabbing him in the back, who kick people out for objecting to this really believe that Vatican II deepens and subsequently makes explicit teachings of the Church not yet conceptually formulated?
It is modernist lingo.
You are off your rocker.
-
Sean, don't fall for the mindset that it's sinful to criticize Bishop Fellay. His doctrinal preamble was garbage and has never been publicly retracted. You don't owe him an apology, you did nothing wrong. It is Bishop Fellay that needs to apologize for his sorry preamble.
-
A bastard mass is legitimately promulgated?
Why don't they come out and admit they're breaking with the Archbishop?
They can't and won't because they are deceivers. They'd have to admit they were hypocrites or were wrong in condemning Campos and the FSSP!
They are absolute scoundrels, and they know it!
-
The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens - in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit - certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated
No one with reading comprehension can accept this.
How can you fall for their hair-splitting sophistry?
WAKE UP! Don't let scrupulous submisssion to these clowns trip you up!
It's saying Vatican II was of God, that it leads us to a true intepretation of aspects of the Faith.
Did they give an example of what it is that Vatican II deepens and makes more explicit?
The more one analyzes the docuмents of Vatican II, and the more one analyzes their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realizes that what is at stake is not merely superficial errors, a few mistakes, ecuмenism, religious liberty, collegiality, a certain Liberalism, but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism.
How can such a thing then deepen and subsequently make more explicit certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present?
Give me a break!
The vicious lying priests who have venomous freemasons foreword books for them and have Zionists represent Archbishop Lefebvre's choice for bishops - stabbing him in the back, who kick people out for objecting to this really believe that Vatican II deepens and subsequently makes explicit teachings of the Church not yet conceptually formulated?
It is modernist lingo.
You are off your rocker.
Heaven help us if, within our Resistance, "theological distinctions" become synonomous with "hair-splitting!"
-
On several occassions in the recent past, I have accused Bishop Fellay of violating Catholic doctrine in his April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration. [...]
Now, certainly I believe Bishop Fellay used diplomatic language in this provision, and hoped it would be acceptable to both modernist and traditionalist.
That is another way of saying that +Fellay used ambiguity. This could be justified on some occasions, but it is ambiguous language acceptable when declaring doctrine?
I disagree:
Ambiguity is the use of language capable of disparate meaning.
"Certain aspects" is not an ambiguous phrase:
It stands in clear contradistinction to "all aspects."
I definately agree that clearer language more akin to the June 27, 2013 "Declaration of the Three Bishops" ought to have been used.
"All aspects" would not be ambiguous but "certain aspects" is because it is not clear which of the aspects are referenced. Furthermore, "all aspect" of the life and doctrine of the Church could not possibly be present in a council of limited scope.
So which aspects of the Church are present in Vatican II and are there aspects present in the Council not of the Church? Obviously, the Council does contain many foreign aspects. That overriding disqualification of Vatican II is obscured in paragraph 4 because the language is unclear.
-
The language of the Declaration says, " the Council "clarifies - i.e. deepens and makes more explicit over time - certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church that are implicitly present in them or not yet formulated conceptually."
“We believe we can affirm, purely by internal and external criticism of Vatican II, i.e. by analyzing the texts and studying the Council’s ins and outs, that by turning its back on tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, it is a schismatic council.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
We consider as null…all the post-conciliar reforms, and all the acts of Rome accomplished in this impiety.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Joint Declaration with Bishop de Castro Mayer following Assisi, December 2, 1986)
No comparison. Bishop Fellay is a liberal, and he has abandoned Archbishop Lefebvre's stance on Vatican II. The Archbishop never said that Vatican II "deepens certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church".
-
What I don’t like about that provision is the fact that they give Vatican II a status which it doesn’t deserve. Here is what Father Girouard has to say about that provision on his website Sacrificium.org.
"We find in this text, not surprisingly, what we have known about for a while, since it was revealed by Fr. Pfluger on 5th June 2012, at Fanjeaux I think, and which is in itself an abomination [paragraph 3.4] Saying that Vatican II makes explicit “certain elements” contained implicitly in the entire Tradition of the Church means we have just put this pastoral Council (which was diverted and hijacked by the Freemasons and modernists) on the same level as all the other legitimate doctrinal Councils. When you think about it, Vatican II is more akin to a secret get-together of plotters and schemers than a true Council, even if it was presided over and approved by two Popes, because these two Popes made illegitimate use of it: they used it to make a revolution in the Church. That’s why I call it a plotters’ get-together. The first thing a Catholic Pope will to will be to declare the Council illegitimate and void, as was the case with several oriental councils at the start of the Church."
With all due respect to Fr Girouard, he wanders off-point:
The issue is not whether Vatican II is on par with other General Councils, but whether "certain elements" saves this provision from a blanket acceptance of V2 and the hermeneutic of continuity.
Clearly it does, or Rome would not have objected to it.
-
Heaven help us if, within our Resistance, "theological distinctions" become synonomous with "hair-splitting!"
Sure it is hair-splitting.
It says Vatican II deepens and makes more explicit "certain aspects" - and in your mind that's a disclaimer.
Well, unless they say explicitly what those "certain aspects" are it's a blank check.
I'm afraid you may not have the intellectual ability to deal with these sophists.
They talk past honest men, they ignore serious objections, they pretend they're oh so clever at wording their compromises to supposedly let them off the hook.
How can a whole-sale perversion of the mind deepen and make more explicit certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church not yet explicitly formulated?
It can't.
These people are practically admitting to speaking out of both sides of their mouth, and you're defending them because you've made a cult of the SSPX.
These SSPX priests don't have authority. Either they follow Catholic Tradition and the spirit of their founder or they choose to shake hands with modernists.
They've chosen the latter.
Wake up!
-
On several occassions in the recent past, I have accused Bishop Fellay of violating Catholic doctrine in his April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration. [...]
Now, certainly I believe Bishop Fellay used diplomatic language in this provision, and hoped it would be acceptable to both modernist and traditionalist.
That is another way of saying that +Fellay used ambiguity. This could be justified on some occasions, but it is ambiguous language acceptable when declaring doctrine?
I disagree:
Ambiguity is the use of language capable of disparate meaning.
"Certain aspects" is not an ambiguous phrase:
It stands in clear contradistinction to "all aspects."
I definately agree that clearer language more akin to the June 27, 2013 "Declaration of the Three Bishops" ought to have been used.
"All aspects" would not be ambiguous but "certain aspects" is because it is not clear which of the aspects are referenced. Furthermore, "all aspect" of the life and doctrine of the Church could not possibly be present in a council of limited scope.
So which aspects of the Church are present in Vatican II and are there aspects present in the Council not of the Church? Obviously, the Council does contain many foreign aspects. That overriding disqualification of Vatican II is obscured in paragraph 4 because the language is unclear.
...hence my final sentence of your quote (i.e., clearer language ought to have been used).
But ambiguous language (i.e., pharaseology which can mean two contradictory things) was not used, since the phrase "certain aspects" completely precludes an interpretation of "all aspects, or all the doctrines of V2."
-
Heaven help us if, within our Resistance, "theological distinctions" become synonomous with "hair-splitting!"
Please do not accuse the Resistance of evolving new criteria. The April 15 Declaration is clearly unacceptable by traditionally Catholic and classic SSPX criteria.
-
They accepted Vatican II as being implicit in the Tradition of the Church, and suggest the problems are just a matter of a few errors, as opposed to being the fruit of a wholesale perversion of the mind - and that's what Vatican II is.
“The pope says that … the council must be put within the great tradition of the church, must be understood in accordance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely,” the bishop said. “The problem might be in the application, that is: is what happens really in coherence or in harmony with tradition?”
-Bishop Fellay
As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.”
-
Sean, don't fall for the mindset that it's sinful to criticize Bishop Fellay. His doctrinal preamble was garbage and has never been publicly retracted. You don't owe him an apology, you did nothing wrong. It is Bishop Fellay that needs to apologize for his sorry preamble.
More imprecision:
The issue is not the whole of the Doctrinal Declaration, but a very precise provision of it which I misread.
Based on my misreading of this particular provision, I accused him of betraying the faith.
Clearly that was an injustice I am hereby correcting.
It is limited to this particular issue.
The sloppier Resistance argumentation becomes; the more jumps in logic; the more conclusions are based on rationales which exclude relevent evidence (or contain irrelevent evidence); the more credibility Resistance argumentation will suffer...rightfully.
Incompetence does not beget confidence.
-
A bastard mass is legitimately promulgated?
Why don't they come out and admit they're breaking with the Archbishop?
They can't and won't because they are deceivers. They'd have to admit they were hypocrites or were wrong in condemning Campos and the FSSP!
They are absolute scoundrels, and they know it!
Separate issue.
-
The language of the Declaration says, " the Council "clarifies - i.e. deepens and makes more explicit over time - certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church that are implicitly present in them or not yet formulated conceptually."
“We believe we can affirm, purely by internal and external criticism of Vatican II, i.e. by analyzing the texts and studying the Council’s ins and outs, that by turning its back on tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, it is a schismatic council.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
We consider as null…all the post-conciliar reforms, and all the acts of Rome accomplished in this impiety.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Joint Declaration with Bishop de Castro Mayer following Assisi, December 2, 1986)
No comparison. Bishop Fellay is a liberal, and he has abandoned Archbishop Lefebvre's stance on Vatican II. The Archbishop never said that Vatican II "deepens certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church".
Separate issue; demonstrates the inability to stay on point, and the inability to understand necessary distinctions.
You are blending topics.
-
On several occassions in the recent past, I have accused Bishop Fellay of violating Catholic doctrine in his April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration. [...]
Now, certainly I believe Bishop Fellay used diplomatic language in this provision, and hoped it would be acceptable to both modernist and traditionalist.
That is another way of saying that +Fellay used ambiguity. This could be justified on some occasions, but it is ambiguous language acceptable when declaring doctrine?
I disagree:
Ambiguity is the use of language capable of disparate meaning.
"Certain aspects" is not an ambiguous phrase:
It stands in clear contradistinction to "all aspects."
I definately agree that clearer language more akin to the June 27, 2013 "Declaration of the Three Bishops" ought to have been used.
"All aspects" would not be ambiguous but "certain aspects" is because it is not clear which of the aspects are referenced. Furthermore, "all aspect" of the life and doctrine of the Church could not possibly be present in a council of limited scope.
So which aspects of the Church are present in Vatican II and are there aspects present in the Council not of the Church? Obviously, the Council does contain many foreign aspects. That overriding disqualification of Vatican II is obscured in paragraph 4 because the language is unclear.
...hence my final sentence of your quote (i.e., clearer language ought to have been used).
But ambiguous language (i.e., pharaseology which can mean two contradictory things) was not used, since the phrase "certain aspects" completely precludes an interpretation of "all aspects, or all the doctrines of V2."
I should have said ambiguous again instead of unclear.
The contradistinction of "certain aspects" with "all aspects" is a red herring. "Certain aspects" could be interpreted in various ways depending upon which of the unspecified aspects one believes are referenced.
-
The sloppier Resistance argumentation becomes; the more jumps in logic; the more conclusions are based on rationales which exclude relevent evidence (or contain irrelevent evidence); the more credibility Resistance argumentation will suffer...rightfully.
Do you believe Vatican II deepens and makes explicit certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present in its Tradition?
You're the sloppy one. We're fully justified in wondering how you can defend part of this docuмent and make some histrionic "retraction" as though you owed Bishop Fellay an apology.
You need to start looking at your own ego, which is the reason for this scrupulous grandstanding.
-
Heaven help us if, within our Resistance, "theological distinctions" become synonomous with "hair-splitting!"
Sure it is hair-splitting.
It says Vatican II deepens and makes more explicit "certain aspects" - and in your mind that's a disclaimer.
Well, unless they say explicitly what those "certain aspects" are it's a blank check.
I'm afraid you may not have the intellectual ability to deal with these sophists.
They talk past honest men, they ignore serious objections, they pretend they're oh so clever at wording their compromises to supposedly let them off the hook.
How can a whole-sale perversion of the mind deepen and make more explicit certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church not yet explicitly formulated?
It can't.
These people are practically admitting to speaking out of both sides of their mouth, and you're defending them because you've made a cult of the SSPX.
These SSPX priests don't have authority. Either they follow Catholic Tradition and the spirit of their founder or they choose to shake hands with modernists.
They've chosen the latter.
Wake up!
Very emotionalized.
I will concede the argument when you can demonstrate why "certain aspects" necessarily includes the heretical portions of V2.
-
If you're defending the garbage in the preamble we should be excused for thinking you're looking for excuses to defend the whole thing.
-
Heaven help us if, within our Resistance, "theological distinctions" become synonomous with "hair-splitting!"
Please do not accuse the Resistance of evolving new criteria. The April 15 Declaration is clearly unacceptable by traditionally Catholic and classic SSPX criteria.
Huh?
More imprecision.
I find none of the words in your response in the quote of my comment you provided.
And yet again: A demonstrated inability to stay on point.
The issue is not the general unacceptability of the AFD (which I completely agree with), but whether the language of #4 is the acceptance of the hermeneutic and a betrayal of the Faith.
The phrase "certain aspects" prevents this presumption.
-
Very emotionalized.
You bait people with your histrionics and complain about righteous anger?
You're acting like a clown.,
I will concede the argument when you can demonstrate why "certain aspects" necessarily includes the heretical portions of V2.
You're talking past us. Bishop Fellay in so many words accepted Vatican II, and did so in interviews too.
The more one analyzes the docuмents of Vatican II, and the more one analyzes their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realizes that what is at stake is not merely superficial errors, a few mistakes, ecuмenism, religious liberty, collegiality, a certain Liberalism, but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism.
Now how can such a thing deepen and make more explicit certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church?
Your grandstanding "retraction" is simply outrageous.
-
Sean, don't fall for the mindset that it's sinful to criticize Bishop Fellay. His doctrinal preamble was garbage and has never been publicly retracted. You don't owe him an apology, you did nothing wrong. It is Bishop Fellay that needs to apologize for his sorry preamble.
More imprecision:
The issue is not the whole of the Doctrinal Declaration, but a very precise provision of it which I misread.
Based on my misreading of this particular provision, I accused him of betraying the faith.
Clearly that was an injustice I am hereby correcting.
It is limited to this particular issue.
The sloppier Resistance argumentation becomes; the more jumps in logic; the more conclusions are based on rationales which exclude relevent evidence (or contain irrelevent evidence); the more credibility Resistance argumentation will suffer...rightfully.
Incompetence does not beget confidence.
Sean, you need to quit being stubborn and listen to what we're trying to tell you for a minute.
Starting with the recent declaration of the three Bishops a few weeks ago, I am concerned that you're starting to lean towards Bishop Fellay's side. You were making statements that you hoped the declaration was a step towards rebuilding, and now you're apologizing for a statement you made that wasn't even sinful. You need to quit letting what this priest told you fog your thinking. "He's a priest, so what he said must be true" doesn't apply, priests are prone to error as well.
-
The scrupulosity of some to criticize Bishop Fellay's disgraceful words and actions is not good for the Resistance. These people think it's charity not to criticize him, but it's really pacifism.
Now, that's not to say that there isn't a line that should be drawn. I agree that accusing him of being a Freemason or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ without proof is uncalled for. But his words and actions are completely open to criticism and are worthy of it. No one owes him any apology.
-
The sloppier Resistance argumentation becomes; the more jumps in logic; the more conclusions are based on rationales which exclude relevent evidence (or contain irrelevent evidence); the more credibility Resistance argumentation will suffer...rightfully.
Do you believe Vatican II deepens and makes explicit certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present in its Tradition?
You're the sloppy one. We're fully justified in wondering how you can defend part of this docuмent and make some histrionic "retraction" as though you owed Bishop Fellay an apology.
You need to start looking at your own ego, which is the reason for this scrupulous grandstanding.
It is a strange mind that considers making a retraction grandstanding.
-
If you're defending the garbage in the preamble we should be excused for thinking you're looking for excuses to defend the whole thing.
Another perfect example of jumping to conclusions not supported by the evidence.
-
It is a strange mind that considers making a retraction grandstanding.
It certainly is.
You've confused your scruples for objectivity and you are causing dissension. For what?
To supposedly justify a statement that says Vatican II deepens and makes more explicit aspects of Church Tradition!
How and where does it do that?
-
Very emotionalized.
You bait people with your histrionics and complain about righteous anger?
You're acting like a clown.,
I will concede the argument when you can demonstrate why "certain aspects" necessarily includes the heretical portions of V2.
You're talking past us. Bishop Fellay in so many words accepted Vatican II, and did so in interviews too.
The more one analyzes the docuмents of Vatican II, and the more one analyzes their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realizes that what is at stake is not merely superficial errors, a few mistakes, ecuмenism, religious liberty, collegiality, a certain Liberalism, but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism.
Now how can such a thing deepen and make more explicit certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church?
Your grandstanding "retraction" is simply outrageous.
Ahh....."in so many words"....
More evidence of the hatred of precision, and the inability to detect nuance and distinction.
-
Sean, don't fall for the mindset that it's sinful to criticize Bishop Fellay. His doctrinal preamble was garbage and has never been publicly retracted. You don't owe him an apology, you did nothing wrong. It is Bishop Fellay that needs to apologize for his sorry preamble.
More imprecision:
The issue is not the whole of the Doctrinal Declaration, but a very precise provision of it which I misread.
Based on my misreading of this particular provision, I accused him of betraying the faith.
Clearly that was an injustice I am hereby correcting.
It is limited to this particular issue.
The sloppier Resistance argumentation becomes; the more jumps in logic; the more conclusions are based on rationales which exclude relevent evidence (or contain irrelevent evidence); the more credibility Resistance argumentation will suffer...rightfully.
Incompetence does not beget confidence.
Sean, you need to quit being stubborn and listen to what we're trying to tell you for a minute.
Starting with the recent declaration of the three Bishops a few weeks ago, I am concerned that you're starting to lean towards Bishop Fellay's side. You were making statements that you hoped the declaration was a step towards rebuilding, and now you're apologizing for a statement you made that wasn't even sinful. You need to quit letting what this priest told you fog your thinking. "He's a priest, so what he said must be true" doesn't apply, priests are prone to error as well.
Please address the argument.
-
Another perfect example of jumping to conclusions not supported by the evidence.
So what do you think about the Doctrinal Preamble. Do you still condemn it, since you claim now you couldn't understand what it said before?
If you couldn't understand it before why should we presume you understand the rest of it?
-
If you're defending the garbage in the preamble we should be excused for thinking you're looking for excuses to defend the whole thing.
Another perfect example of jumping to conclusions not supported by the evidence.
Your posts here certainly suggest that you're on the path to Fellay-ism with the mindset you're spouting. You're falling for false charity and pure smoke-screens by Menzingen.
-
It is a strange mind that considers making a retraction grandstanding.
It certainly is.
You've confused your scruples for objectivity and you are causing dissension. For what?
To supposedly justify a statement that says Vatican II deepens and makes more explicit aspects of Church Tradition!
How and where does it do that?
I noticed you conveniently left out the word "certain."
-
More evidence of the hatred of precision, and the inability to detect nuance and distinction.
Hatred of precision?
The defenders of the Doctrinal Preamble are the ones who hate precision and speak like Pharisees. And you've fallen for it in this case.
Either Vatican II deepens understanding of aspects of Church doctrine not yet formulated or it is the result of a whole-sale perversion of the mind.
It can't be both.
-
Another perfect example of jumping to conclusions not supported by the evidence.
So what do you think about the Doctrinal Preamble. Do you still condemn it, since you claim now you couldn't understand what it said before?
If you couldn't understand it before why should we presume you understand the rest of it?
A fair question, actually.
Could you tell me what other parts you think I erred in condemning?
-
Sean, you need to drop the immature one-liners and answer his question.
-
If you're defending the garbage in the preamble we should be excused for thinking you're looking for excuses to defend the whole thing.
Another perfect example of jumping to conclusions not supported by the evidence.
Your posts here certainly suggest that you're on the path to Fellay-ism with the mindset you're spouting. You're falling for false charity and pure smoke-screens by Menzingen.
Only a mind incapable of making necessary distinctions would let the issue of #4 overflow into other matters.
-
I noticed you conveniently left out the word "certain."
You lack reading comprehension if you think that makes a difference.
Which is your problem.
If you can't understand what's written, then you shouldn't be commenting on it.
If you think you made an error before, then you should say you realize you lack the competence to understand the preamble.
aspects, some aspects, certain aspects, those all mean the same thing in context.
I certainly didn't leave anything out to change the meaning.
If it explicitly formulates certain aspects, then it explicitly formulates some aspects, so what are those aspects that it explicitly formulates?
It's pretty simple for people who can read.
-
certain aspects could mean more than one aspect up to and including anything short of all aspects.
Can someone tell me what are the aspects of Catholic Tradition that Vatican II has clarified? What has it formulated that was previously only implicitly contained in Tradition?
And if the mindset behind Vatican II is a "complete perversion" as Archbishop Lefebvre said, how could those behind the docuмents saying it has enlightened Tradition in any respects?
-
Sean,
You're developing scruples.
You are forgiven.
Go have beer and forget about it.
-
What are the good parts of Vatican II that enlighten Tradition? Has the SSPX been talking about those over the years?
Ever hear about those in any SSPX sermons?
How Vatican II in some respects makes Catholic Tradition more clear and explicit?
And we cannot merely look at 4 in isolation.
5. The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the later Pontifical Magisterium, relating to the relationship between the Church and the non-Catholic Christian confessions, as well as the social duty of religion and the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is, with difficulty, reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium, must be understood in the light of the whole, uninterrupted Tradition, in a manner coherent with the truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church, without accepting any interpretation of these affirmations whatsoever, that would expose Catholic doctrine to opposition, or rupture with Tradition and with this Magisterium.
So this is a rejection of the hermeneutic of rupture.
It says religious liberty can be reconciled with prior doctrinal affirmations!
It says no one may interpret the affirmations of Vatican II as being in rupture with Tradition!
This is called 3 card monte.
This is why Bishop Fellay spoke of "very limited liberty" - because he accepted it in the preamble!
-
Very emotionalized.
I will concede the argument when you can demonstrate why "certain aspects" necessarily includes the heretical portions of V2.
Can you demonstrate that they necessarily exclude the heretcial portions?
Argumentum ad ignorantiam is a very weak position to take Sean.
-
I have just received semi-correction from an sspx priest:
Use of the phrase "certain aspects" keeps Bishop Fellay from having violated the faith with AFD #4.
Nevertheless, the omission to specify which aspects makes the provision seriously ambiguous.
From this, I deduce my apology was required, but i was wrong to argue against the provisions' ambiguity.
-
The response of the priest (who has refused permission to let me identify him, or even quote him directly, but gave permission for me to paraphrase) was that:
So why did this priest demand to remain anonymous, or even quoted directly, Sean, while your name is there for all the world to see?
-
"4. The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens - in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit - certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated(8)."
Telesphorus has a point.
What are the good parts of Vatican II that enlighten Tradition? Has the SSPX been talking about those over the years?
Ever hear about those in any SSPX sermons?
How Vatican II in some respects makes Catholic Tradition more clear and explicit?
I agree that the statement is ambiguous and, thus, one may not necessarily declare, with certainty, that this is heretical. But where is the evidence that there are "certain aspects" that we can even look to and when has the SSPX explained these? Furthermore, the most egregious aspect of Modernism is its ambiguity.
So, based on all I've read here today, the most positive spin we can place on Bishop Fellay is that he is a Modernist. Somehow, I don't think that is what you are trying to do.
-
The response of the priest (who has refused permission to let me identify him, or even quote him directly, but gave permission for me to paraphrase) was that:
So why did this priest demand to remain anonymous, or even quoted directly, Sean, while your name is there for all the world to see?
His stated reason was because of his low regard for fora such as this.
-
I originally posted this under Crisis in the Church on the Feast Day of Pope Saint Leo II, July 3, and posting it again because I feel it is relevant to what we see today in the SSPX. From Wikipedia:
Leo's short-lived pontificate did not allow him to accomplish much, but there was one achievement of major importance: he confirmed the acts of the Sixth Ecuмenical Council (680-1)....
During this council, Pope Honorius I was anathematised for his views in the Monothelite controversy as tolerant of heresy.[4] Leo took great pains to make it clear that in condemning Honorius, he did so not because Honorius taught heresy, but because he was not active enough in opposing it.
-
So, based on all I've read here today, the most positive spin we can place on Bishop Fellay is that he is a Modernist. Somehow, I don't think that is what you are trying to do.
And yet, according to Pope Saint Pius X, Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies.
-
The response of the priest (who has refused permission to let me identify him, or even quote him directly, but gave permission for me to paraphrase) was that:
So why did this priest demand to remain anonymous, or even quoted directly, Sean, while your name is there for all the world to see?
His stated reason was because of his low regard for fora such as this.
Did you defend CI?
-
In all due respect, Sean, they're taking advantage of you.
-
In all due respect, Sean, they're taking advantage of you.
In what way?
It was my own sense of justice that realized after accusing Bishop Fellay of heresy (which all here seem to admit does not follow necessarily from #4) I was bound to apologize, having realized my mistake.
Nobody in the SSPX asked me to do this.
Your imagination is running ahead of the evidence.
-
In all due respect, Sean, they're taking advantage of you.
In what way?
It was my own sense of justice that realized after accusing Bishop Fellay of heresy (which all here seem to admit does not follow necessarily from #4) I was bound to apologize, having realized my mistake.
Nobody in the SSPX asked me to do this.
Your imagination is running ahead of the evidence.
I never said anyone asked you to do it, Sean.
-
Let's talk facts. Bishop Fellay prevented Bishop Williamson from attending a major meeting Then Bishop Fellay punishes priests and forces them out. Then the Resistance formed and the faithful are denied communion and ostracized including children. With bishop Fellays permission Father Hewko was prevented from attending his own nephew's ordination. Actions speak louder then words. These actions Are evil and not Catholic. WWJ or Mary do?
From another post. France's is right. The hierarchy of sspx. knows what they are doing.
-
After reading this whole thread I should state I don't wish to beat on a dead horse.
That being said, if defending the very person who has literally destroyed the biggest traditional group with threads such as "Bishop Fellay Renounces Doctrinal Declaration" or "Bishop Fellay deserves an apology" does not expose a confused or deceived soul, I don't know what else could.
Add to that an acceptance of receiving a "semi-correction" from a SSPX priest (traitor) on bishop Fellay's doctrinal declaration... :confused1:
If you were receiving "semi-corrections" of real SSPX (not ExSSPX) you'd realize your "sense of justice", in reality, is nothing but "scrupulous".
Is Seraphim back? Let's hope not.
-
Let's talk facts. Bishop Fellay prevented Bishop Williamson from attending a major meeting Then Bishop Fellay punishes priests and forces them out. Then the Resistance formed and the faithful are denied communion and ostracized including children. With bishop Fellays permission Father Hewko was prevented from attending his own nephew's ordination. Actions speak louder then words. These actions Are evil and not Catholic. WWJ or Mary do?
From another post. France's is right. The hierarchy of sspx. knows what they are doing.
Please quote the passage where I have disputed any of this???
-
What a bunch of morons.
Unless you assert that #4 of the AFD contains heresy, I was obviously bound, having realized my mistake, to repair the unjust allegation.
Sorry if you haven't the honesty to put truth before the agenda.
It is almost as if you fear the cause cannot withstand the truth.
-
So if this all true the why apologize or try to justify Bishop Fellay's sins and errors which offend God. St Thomas Aqinas said we should correct our superiors sins and error.
Playing head games is a sin. Christ and the Catholic Church is about truth.
Sspx hierarchy seems like it is doing damage control. The novus ordo was always playing head games.
-
Calling us a bunch of morons is evil. It seems that the devil working overtime.
-
So if this all true the why apologize or try to justify Bishop Fellay's sins and errors which offend God. St Thomas Aqinas said we should correct our superiors sins and error.
Playing head games is a sin. Christ and the Catholic Church is about truth.
Sspx hierarchy seems like it is doing damage control. The novus ordo was always playing head games.
I have over 2000 posts on this forum.
Please find even just one in which i approve of Bishophop Fellay's methods, and quote it for me.
-
I have just received semi-correction from an sspx priest:
Use of the phrase "certain aspects" keeps Bishop Fellay from having violated the faith with AFD #4.
Nevertheless, the omission to specify which aspects makes the provision seriously ambiguous.
From this, I deduce my apology was required, but i was wrong to argue against the [provision's] ambiguity.
I changed your plural apostrophe to a singular one, Mr. Johnson.
When someone like +F has had the training and experience he has,
and yet he comes along and follows suit with Vat.II in his use of
ambiguity as if to pay homage to that abominable screed of
subterfuge against the Faith of Catholics worldwide, if not heresy,
it's so very close to heresy as to be practically indistinguishable.
For you then to come along and make a drama scene out of your
personal scruples puts a bit of a cloud over your own reputation.
Do you really want to be known for being a drama queen? If not,
you're not doing a very good job of it.
But all in all, the thread here is not a waste, because it has evoked
the reactions of informed members to the point of clarifying one
aspect of the abominable AFD that otherwise would not have
garnered much attention. If you had planned it that way, I'd have
to be suspect, but it seems to me that you were acting in good
faith, only doing it your own way, like Frank Sinatra (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egY8rUpxqcE), who was a kind
of drama queen, after all, for his own time. The linked song came
out the year of the foul stream otherwise known as Newmass: 1969.
And then there's the fact that you've managed to evoke more words
from Tele than he's generated all year, pretty much, all in one thread.
So that's kind of an achievement in itself, but keep in mind, that he's
doing this because he respects you, and he's only grasping at straws
in an attempt to prevent your further slide into the abyss of Fellayism.
Shudder at the thought. :furtive:
But he is most perceptive by way of noticing that you have been
exhibiting aspects of the slide, for you have been weakening in your
resolve in general. I wasn't going to say anything but this is now the
time. Something is getting to you, and perhaps you ought to consider
that the priest to whom you've submitted yourself in good faith is
leading you astray. And that means that he himself is sliding into the
abyss of Fellayism, too, and he's taking you with him. It doesn't
really matter what his name is, because there are scores more just
like him. We all probably know a few. This is the effect of the swing
of that great pendulum whose path sweeps a fewer number each
time, as if it is slowing down, and soon will cease to swing unless
acted upon by an outside force.
-
Let me get this straight, Sean. Your "over 2000 posts" trump all the combined posts of the "morons" on CI. And you are stating this on a forum for which a Menzingen-Priest, whom you obviously admire and conferred with, has low regard. Do I have that correct? Know who your friends are, Sean. It will help when in the foxhole.
-
Let me get this straight, Sean. Your "over 2000 posts" trump all the combined posts of the "morons" on CI. And you are stating this on a forum for which a Menzingen-Priest, whom you obviously admire and conferred with, has low regard. Do I have that correct? Know who your friends are, Sean. It will help when in the foxhole.
That is quite the indictment, coming from one who usually prefers to attend the sspx mass over the resistance mass when one is in town!
-
Yep. The devil is working overtime. Sean so does your priest friend thinks its ok to mistreat other priests and the faithful.
-
The Resistance gives obedience to God not Man.
Give obedience to God. ; not Bishop Fellay.
-
Let me get this straight, Sean. Your "over 2000 posts" trump all the combined posts of the "morons" on CI. And you are stating this on a forum for which a Menzingen-Priest, whom you obviously admire and conferred with, has low regard. Do I have that correct? Know who your friends are, Sean. It will help when in the foxhole.
That is quite the indictment, coming from one who usually prefers to attend the sspx mass over the resistance mass when one is in town!
Our priest has been good, and he is being sent away because of it. My support has been for him. My insignificant posts, admittedly, come nowhere near to your onerous 2000 plus posts, but there are many here who deserve your respect and have given much to this forum. We need you the way you were.
-
Let me get this straight, Sean. Your "over 2000 posts" trump all the combined posts of the "morons" on CI. And you are stating this on a forum for which a Menzingen-Priest, whom you obviously admire and conferred with, has low regard. Do I have that correct? Know who your friends are, Sean. It will help when in the foxhole.
That is quite the indictment, coming from one who usually prefers to attend the sspx mass over the resistance mass when one is in town!
Our priest has been good, and he is being sent away because of it. My support has been for him. My insignificant posts, admittedly, come nowhere near to your onerous 2000 plus posts, but there are many here who deserve your respect and have given much to this forum.
No!
You are supporting the sellout!
You should be at home!
You are supporting Bishop Fellay by being there!
You must be softening!
How dare you support Max Krah!
I am very concerned for you!
You are being used!
Get it now?
-
.
Or, one could think of it as a type of the hardest working man in show business (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzMXvzyC_wE).
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=25488&min=10#p0)
Isn't this the second time Sean Johnson / Seraphim has left?
Maybe taking a little time off for peace, reflection, prayer; a little time away for refreshment of the soul.
.......lest he be truly going down in flames...............
-
Let me get this straight, Sean. Your "over 2000 posts" trump all the combined posts of the "morons" on CI. And you are stating this on a forum for which a Menzingen-Priest, whom you obviously admire and conferred with, has low regard. Do I have that correct? Know who your friends are, Sean. It will help when in the foxhole.
That is quite the indictment, coming from one who usually prefers to attend the sspx mass over the resistance mass when one is in town!
Our priest has been good, and he is being sent away because of it. My support has been for him. My insignificant posts, admittedly, come nowhere near to your onerous 2000 plus posts, but there are many here who deserve your respect and have given much to this forum. We need you the way you were.
Where are you guys from
-
I get what you're saying, Sean; however, both you and I know that the priest at our chapel doesn't support the SSPX slide into Modernism. With a little help from us, he could become part of the "Resistance" some day (if and when it becomes apparent to him); whereas, with that priest-friend of yours, he's influencing you, as can be easily noted in your more recent posts.
-
I get what you're saying, Sean; however, both you and I know that the priest at our chapel doesn't support the SSPX slide into Modernism. With a little help from us, he could become part of the "Resistance" some day (if and when it becomes apparent to him); whereas, with that priest-friend of yours, he's influencing you, as can be easily noted in your more recent posts.
...except that it has not been him I have been communicating with.
PS: Certain issues are better communicated by PM.
-
I get what you're saying, Sean; however, both you and I know that the priest at our chapel doesn't support the SSPX slide into Modernism. With a little help from us, he could become part of the "Resistance" some day (if and when it becomes apparent to him); whereas, with that priest-friend of yours, he's influencing you, as can be easily noted in your more recent posts.
...except that it has not been him I have been communicating with.
So there was just once with "him", but now there's someone else? Very interesting.
Missed your add-on. PM away.
:sign-surrender:
-
.
The fact that the thread starter has not responded to you, TKGS,
says it all...........
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=25804&min=45#p4)
"4. The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens - in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit - certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated(8)."
Telesphorus has a point.
Tele, in point of fact, has made numerous points in this thread, more
than in just about any other RECENT thread. He's trying to hold on to
something even as he sees it slipping away.
It's really a microcosm of the crisis, for Resistance members watch
as their friends drift off into the sunset, and there's literally nothing to
be done about it.
Lo que será, será, y que lástima.
What are the good parts of Vatican II that enlighten Tradition? Has the SSPX been talking about those over the years?
Ever hear about those in any SSPX sermons?
How Vatican II in some respects makes Catholic Tradition more clear and explicit?
I agree that the statement is ambiguous and, thus, one may not necessarily declare, with certainty, that this is heretical. But where is the evidence that there are "certain aspects" that we can even look to and when has the SSPX explained these? Furthermore, the most egregious aspect of Modernism is its ambiguity.
So, based on all I've read here today, the most positive spin we can place on Bishop Fellay is that he is a Modernist. Somehow, I don't think that is what you are trying to do.
To a Modernist, saying "HEBF is a Modernist" is a compliment.
A real Modernist is proud of it. And there isn't much else to see in him
than utter pride. He thrashes and punishes when opposed, like a trapped
wild beast. There is no converting him, and to that extent, his comfort
zone is to be with like-minded brethren such as those in the Vatican who
are likewise dug-in. It's very simple. Don't try to fight it. It is what it is.
Sean Johnson, even if he doesn't intend it, is enjoying the limelight.
It's all about him, at the root, but that's a weakness that he fights
against, normally. Sometimes it gets the better of him, though.
It's part of human nature, and as such, not surprising.
-
I get what you're saying, Sean; however, both you and I know that the priest at our chapel doesn't support the SSPX slide into Modernism. With a little help from us, he could become part of the "Resistance" some day (if and when it becomes apparent to him); whereas, with that priest-friend of yours, he's influencing you, as can be easily noted in your more recent posts.
...except that it has not been him I have been communicating with.
So there was just once with "him", but now there's someone else? Very interesting.
Missed your add-on. PM away.
:sign-surrender:
I have been in communication with several priests since the crisis began (on both sides).
A prudent man weighs arguments in order to discern truth.
Do you find that objectionable?
-
I get what you're saying, Sean; however, both you and I know that the priest at our chapel doesn't support the SSPX slide into Modernism. With a little help from us, he could become part of the "Resistance" some day (if and when it becomes apparent to him); whereas, with that priest-friend of yours, he's influencing you, as can be easily noted in your more recent posts.
...except that it has not been him I have been communicating with.
So there was just once with "him", but now there's someone else? Very interesting.
Missed your add-on. PM away.
:sign-surrender:
I have been in communication with several priests since the crisis began (on both sides).
A prudent man weighs arguments in order to discern truth.
Do you find that objectionable?
You know, Sean, I like you. I always have. And I have a lot of respect for what you've done for the Resistance. If this is what you think you need to do, so be it. Signing off for the night.... May God bless you.
-
I get what you're saying, Sean; however, both you and I know that the priest at our chapel doesn't support the SSPX slide into Modernism. With a little help from us, he could become part of the "Resistance" some day (if and when it becomes apparent to him); whereas, with that priest-friend of yours, he's influencing you, as can be easily noted in your more recent posts.
...except that it has not been him I have been communicating with.
So there was just once with "him", but now there's someone else? Very interesting.
Missed your add-on. PM away.
:sign-surrender:
I have been in communication with several priests since the crisis began (on both sides).
A prudent man weighs arguments in order to discern truth.
Do you find that objectionable?
You know, Sean, I like you. I always have. And I have a lot of respect for what you've done for the Resistance. If this is what you think you need to do, so be it. Signing off for the night.... May God bless you.
Pax tecuм
-
.
FWIW - anyone unfamiliar with the codes on CI for thread numbers
may like to know that the following linked post is from a thread that is
326 threads prior to the present thread in regards to the Opening
Post (OP). But CI has a lot of volume, so those hundreds of threads
only cover a period of a mere 2 (two) weeks.
.
Or, one could think of it as a type of the hardest working man in show business (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzMXvzyC_wE).
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=25488&min=10#p0)
Isn't this the second time Sean Johnson / Seraphim has left?
Maybe taking a little time off for peace, reflection, prayer; a little time away for refreshment of the soul.
.......lest he be truly going down in flames...............
-
Isn't this docuмent from Bp. Fellay his written testament, his Oath of Fidelity and Loyalty to the Vicar of Christ? Did Bp. Fellay tell you somewhere, or did this eminant priest of yours tell you , that 'Bp.Fellay knows the pope would only need some of the paragraphs-- not all of them?'
I doubt this to be the case.
In fact, Bp. Fellay just promised to be always faithful to you, Oh Christ.( ara I).. to accept always all of your teachings...(para II)..adhering to each doctrinal affirmation...He just accepted the pope as the head of the college of bishops
(Para III.1)...he accepts that the pope teaches the word of God, and the Holy Ghost protects him in this (Para III.2)..."he vowed acceptance that Tradition is the living transmission of revelation and the Church perpetuates and transmits to all generations what this is and what She believes.He stated belief that Tradition progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Ghost through a better understanding of the Deposit of the Faith"..(Para.III.3).and THEN Bp Fellay adds,
"to understand the Vatican Council teaching, we believe in the entire tradition of the Catholic faith, and, in doing this, the Vatican Council enlightens ( eg deepens and makes more explicit) certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the church( implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated).( Para III.4)
So, Sean. The Bishop is saying that he agrees and believes and promises to believe and agree that "Tradition" transmits the faith, and progresses in the Church with the Holy Ghosts' assistance to result in the deposit of faith. We believe, he says, that this deposit is better understood, enlightened, made more deeper, through the Vatican Council teachings, especially with respect to CERTAIN ASPECTS of the Church's doctrines-- some which haven't even been thought of yet!.
If you will look up the definition of certain, you'll readily see that "certain" does certainly NOT mean "some doctrines which haven't even been dreamt up yet!" The use of the word "certain" is usually followed by the explicit examples the writer has in mind-- so that the reader is absolutely "certain" what the writer means.
And, Sean, the only way to interpret this mass of modernist double-speak is to accept it as it was proffered: as an integral whole. The writer, Bp. fellay, in the name of the Society of Saint Pius X, is, in this docuмent, telling the reader that
"We accept you as pope, We accept you as the Vicar of Jesus Christ, We accept you as the head of the College of the Bishops, we accept that you transmit tradition with the guidance of the Holy Ghost, we accept that that tradition includes the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, and we accept and believe that the Second Vatican Council teachings enlightens some teachings of the Church-- those teaching which we know and those which nobody knows yet.
It is patently impossible, Sean, to take out paragraph III.4. it must remain with the whole of the attestations and vows, as an integral whole unit of beliefs.And you need to add the balance of the AFD, Paragraphs III5,6,7,8. They all constitute the entire set of beliefs--just like the Apostle's Creed, which we believe. If you omit "the Father Almighty, you are not praying the Apostle's Creed.
This priest friend of yours is following the new oath of fidelity also-- therefore he is loath to speak the plain and simple meanings of the language used by the Bishop to curry favor with Rome. And herein lies the conundrum. When people double speak to others who are masters of the double speak art, they are outed out! And that's what happened. Because, for all intents and purposes, this Declaration should have clenched the deal. But the snakes in Rome could smell a snake in the woodpile. They could see this was written so someone, in the future, could say " Oh-- we didn't mean THAT; what we meant by these words was THIS!"
Walk away from your priest friend-- he's trying to drag you down>
-
Isn't this docuмent from Bp. Fellay his written testament, his Oath of Fidelity and Loyalty to the Vicar of Christ? Did Bp. Fellay tell you somewhere, or did this eminant priest of yours tell you , that 'Bp.Fellay knows the pope would only need some of the paragraphs-- not all of them?'
I doubt this to be the case.
In fact, Bp. Fellay just promised to be always faithful to you, Oh Christ.( ara I).. to accept always all of your teachings...(para II)..adhering to each doctrinal affirmation...He just accepted the pope as the head of the college of bishops
(Para III.1)...he accepts that the pope teaches the word of God, and the Holy Ghost protects him in this (Para III.2)..."he vowed acceptance that Tradition is the living transmission of revelation and the Church perpetuates and transmits to all generations what this is and what She believes.He stated belief that Tradition progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Ghost through a better understanding of the Deposit of the Faith"..(Para.III.3).and THEN Bp Fellay adds,
"to understand the Vatican Council teaching, we believe in the entire tradition of the Catholic faith, and, in doing this, the Vatican Council enlightens ( eg deepens and makes more explicit) certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the church( implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated).( Para III.4)
So, Sean. The Bishop is saying that he agrees and believes and promises to believe and agree that "Tradition" transmits the faith, and progresses in the Church with the Holy Ghosts' assistance to result in the deposit of faith. We believe, he says, that this deposit is better understood, enlightened, made more deeper, through the Vatican Council teachings, especially with respect to CERTAIN ASPECTS of the Church's doctrines-- some which haven't even been thought of yet!.
If you will look up the definition of certain, you'll readily see that "certain" does certainly NOT mean "some doctrines which haven't even been dreamt up yet!" The use of the word "certain" is usually followed by the explicit examples the writer has in mind-- so that the reader is absolutely "certain" what the writer means.
And, Sean, the only way to interpret this mass of modernist double-speak is to accept it as it was proffered: as an integral whole. The writer, Bp. fellay, in the name of the Society of Saint Pius X, is, in this docuмent, telling the reader that
"We accept you as pope, We accept you as the Vicar of Jesus Christ, We accept you as the head of the College of the Bishops, we accept that you transmit tradition with the guidance of the Holy Ghost, we accept that that tradition includes the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, and we accept and believe that the Second Vatican Council teachings enlightens some teachings of the Church-- those teaching which we know and those which nobody knows yet.
It is patently impossible, Sean, to take out paragraph III.4. it must remain with the whole of the attestations and vows, as an integral whole unit of beliefs.And you need to add the balance of the AFD, Paragraphs III5,6,7,8. They all constitute the entire set of beliefs--just like the Apostle's Creed, which we believe. If you omit "the Father Almighty, you are not praying the Apostle's Creed.
This priest friend of yours is following the new oath of fidelity also-- therefore he is loath to speak the plain and simple meanings of the language used by the Bishop to curry favor with Rome. And herein lies the conundrum. When people double speak to others who are masters of the double speak art, they are outed out! And that's what happened. Because, for all intents and purposes, this Declaration should have clenched the deal. But the snakes in Rome could smell a snake in the woodpile. They could see this was written so someone, in the future, could say " Oh-- we didn't mean THAT; what we meant by these words was THIS!"
Walk away from your priest friend-- he's trying to drag you down>
Hugeman-
At this point, I can only say that many have read much more into my apology than was warranted.
Who knows better than me what I am thinking???
Unless you believe Bishop Fellay's #4 was heretical, you must accept I overstepped justice in accusing him of betraying the Faith on this particular point.
I am quite sure that if Bishop Williamson is reading my post somewhere in England, he is thinking something like:
"True, one cannot presume Bishop Fellay is a heretic on the basis of a deliberately ambiguous passage in which he left himself a deliberate "out" (i.e., "certain aspects");
"And Mr. Johnson has acknowledged that the phraseology is deliberately ambiguous."
"And Mr. Johnson has acknowledged that theology ought not be tampered with in this manner."
"Finally, Mr. Johnson has limited his retraction to this one clause of this one docuмent."
Do you really think all is lost if I render simple justice to a man?
What does that imply?
That we can only win through dishonesty and injustice?
That would certainly be poisoned fruit.
If I have navigated myself through the trouble waters of the Novus Ordo, eventually into Indultarianism, progressing into the SSPX, steered clear of sedevacantism and Feenyism, and sounded the alarm at what was being done in Menzingen/Rome, it has always been because I was well disposed to the truth, and let it lead me where it would.
I make no demands of any man, but I say the things I think I am bound to say.
And that being the case, I can tell you this:
If you think a "priest friend" can exert an undue influence over me, you do not know me. I have many priest friends (on both sides). I have no loyalty but to the truth (as should be pretty obvious by now).
-
It's really a microcosm of the crisis, for Resistance members watch
as their friends drift off into the sunset, and there's literally nothing to
be done about it.
Lo que será, será, y que lástima.
True. We have family that were core Resistance members who left after about 2 months, went back to the SSPX, dabbled in sedevacantism, and now are back at the conciliar church!!!!! What on earth????
-
A prudent man weighs arguments in order to discern truth.
Do you find that objectionable?
Not at all. The last thing Catholic Tradition needs is someone who isn't sure.
-
Let's talk facts. Bishop Fellay prevented Bishop Williamson from attending a major meeting Then Bishop Fellay punishes priests and forces them out. Then the Resistance formed and the faithful are denied communion and ostracized including children. With bishop Fellays permission Father Hewko was prevented from attending his own nephew's ordination. Actions speak louder then words. These actions Are evil and not Catholic. WWJ or Mary do?
:incense:
From another post. France's is right. The hierarchy of sspx. knows what they are doing.
-
It's really a microcosm of the crisis, for Resistance members watch
as their friends drift off into the sunset, and there's literally nothing to
be done about it.
Lo que será, será, y que lástima.
True. We have family that were core Resistance members who left after about 2 months, went back to the SSPX, dabbled in sedevacantism, and now are back at the conciliar church!!!!! What on earth????
Where was that?
-
Let's talk facts. Bishop Fellay prevented Bishop Williamson from attending a major meeting Then Bishop Fellay punishes priests and forces them out. Then the Resistance formed and the faithful are denied communion and ostracized including children. With bishop Fellays permission Father Hewko was prevented from attending his own nephew's ordination. Actions speak louder then words. These actions Are evil and not Catholic. WWJ or Mary do?
:incense: :farmer:
From another post. France's is right. The hierarchy of sspx. knows what they are doing.
-
It's really a microcosm of the crisis, for Resistance members watch
as their friends drift off into the sunset, and there's literally nothing to
be done about it.
Lo que será, será, y que lástima.
True. We have family that were core Resistance members who left after about 2 months, went back to the SSPX, dabbled in sedevacantism, and now are back at the conciliar church!!!!! What on earth????
Where was that?
Where was what?
-
Sean,
Yes, the AFD is heretical. The entire docuмent is a modernist mish mash of nonsense. Some of the words are nice sounding. All of the meaning is evil. Ambiguity of one's basic beliefs
( which the AFD portends to be) is a slap in thr face to Almighty God. There is but
One, True God. And He was not represented in the Second Vatican Council. There is no way those resulting faulty docuмents can shed any positive light on the true faith.
Yes, my friend, you are ill-advised in begging forgiveness for a non sin. Objectively, your original claims had merit. If scruples have now led you elsewhere, you know the path you
need to follow. Simply, however,your friends are showing you, with the application of logic and common sense, that this public protestation may not be of the right spirit.
If you believe Fellay deliberately inserted that one word into the entire docuмent to give himself an out, which is what your priest friend is telling you, then you have to conclude it was quite wise of Ratzinger to reject the docuмent, and to finger the author for the snake he has become.
And I certain-ly doubt the good Bishop would have such a superficial response ad you have indicated-- but, I've certain- ly been wrong before!
You have, at least, succeeded in one thing: I've apparently wasted too
much time on this thread.:)
-
It's really a microcosm of the crisis, for Resistance members watch
as their friends drift off into the sunset, and there's literally nothing to
be done about it.
Lo que será, será, y que lástima.
True. We have family that were core Resistance members who left after about 2 months, went back to the SSPX, dabbled in sedevacantism, and now are back at the conciliar church!!!!! What on earth????
Where was that?
Where was what?
The family who went back to conciliar church. Where were they from?
-
Let's talk facts. Bishop Fellay prevented Bishop Williamson from attending a major meeting Then Bishop Fellay punishes priests and forces them out. Then the Resistance formed and the faithful are denied communion and ostracized including children. With bishop Fellays permission Father Hewko was prevented from attending his own nephew's ordination. Actions speak louder then words. These actions Are evil and not Catholic. WWJ or Mary do?
:farmer:
:incense:
From another post. France's is right. The hierarchy of sspx. knows what they are doing.
-
Sean,
Yes, the AFD is heretical. The entire docuмent is a modernist mish mash of nonsense. Some of the words are nice sounding. All of the meaning is evil. Ambiguity of one's basic beliefs
( which the AFD portends to be) is a slap in thr face to Almighty God. There is but
One, True God. And He was not represented in the Second Vatican Council. There is no way those resulting faulty docuмents can shed any positive light on the true faith.
Yes, my friend, you are ill-advised in begging forgiveness for a non sin. Objectively, your original claims had merit. If scruples have now led you elsewhere, you know the path you
need to follow. Simply, however,your friends are showing you, with the application of logic and common sense, that this public protestation may not be of the right spirit.
If you believe Fellay deliberately inserted that one word into the entire docuмent to give himself an out, which is what your priest friend is telling you, then you have to conclude it was quite wise of Ratzinger to reject the docuмent, and to finger the author for the snake he has become.
And I certain-ly doubt the good Bishop would have such a superficial response ad you have indicated-- but, I've certain- ly been wrong before!
You have, at least, succeeded in one thing: I've apparently wasted too
much time on this thread.:)
Hugeman-
Can you please quote for me the specific portion of AFD #4 that denies a defined article of faith (being sure to point out exactly which article of faith is being denied)?
-
Sorry, just a little note. When refering to God, I'd suggest God Triune be used...(Dios Trino in Spanish). Thank you. Don't want to interrupt this discussion. Just that.
-
Hugeman, "You have, at least, succeeded in one thing: I've apparently wasted too
much time on this thread.:)". Quite the contrary I'd say. This is the reality. HEagernessBF & co. wants us to go to the novus ordo "feast". For sure. So, this thread, I'd say, is the most relevant today.
-
Hugeman, you said it! : "Walk away from your priest friend-- he's trying to drag you down". See what I mean. Exactly. It is not a waste of your time.
-
SeanJohnson: "I have many priest friends (on both sides)". That is your problem. You have to choose your friends. Either one side or the other. It is up to you. I did long time ago and I am very happy with my decission. Spanish:"No es posible quedar bien con Dios Trino y con el Diablo".
-
Neil, "Lo que será, será, y que lástima". Come on, you know this is not so. You are THE first rate warrior from what I have read here on your extraordinary thousands posts.
-
Sorry, just a little note. When refering to God, I'd suggest God Triune be used...(Dios Trino in Spanish). Thank you. Don't want to interrupt this discussion. Just that.
Good suggestion, Elsa. I'll shall remember that.
:pray:
-
Sean, I agree that you need to walk away from these priests. They are only holding you back from exploding in giving your complete dedication for the Holy Resistance. Please accept the fact that the neo-SSPX is toast. The SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre lives on in the Holy Resistance.
-
The scrupulosity of some to criticize Bishop Fellay's disgraceful words and actions is not good for the Resistance. These people think it's charity not to criticize him, but it's really pacifism.
Now, that's not to say that there isn't a line that should be drawn. I agree that accusing him of being a Freemason or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ without proof is uncalled for. But his words and actions are completely open to criticism and are worthy of it. No one owes him any apology.
Succinct and to the point. :applause:
-
Do you really think all is lost if I render simple justice to a man?
What does that imply?
That we can only win through dishonesty and injustice?
That would certainly be poisoned fruit.
The Resistance is not dishonest. You are falling into a trap.
-
Sean,
Yes, the AFD is heretical. The entire docuмent is a modernist mish mash of nonsense. Some of the words are nice sounding. All of the meaning is evil. Ambiguity of one's basic beliefs
( which the AFD portends to be) is a slap in thr face to Almighty God. There is but
One, True God. And He was not represented in the Second Vatican Council. There is no way those resulting faulty docuмents can shed any positive light on the true faith.
Yes, my friend, you are ill-advised in begging forgiveness for a non sin. Objectively, your original claims had merit. If scruples have now led you elsewhere, you know the path you
need to follow. Simply, however,your friends are showing you, with the application of logic and common sense, that this public protestation may not be of the right spirit.
If you believe Fellay deliberately inserted that one word into the entire docuмent to give himself an out, which is what your priest friend is telling you, then you have to conclude it was quite wise of Ratzinger to reject the docuмent, and to finger the author for the snake he has become.
And I certain-ly doubt the good Bishop would have such a superficial response ad you have indicated-- but, I've certain- ly been wrong before!
You have, at least, succeeded in one thing: I've apparently wasted too
much time on this thread.:)
Hugeman-
Can you please quote for me the specific portion of AFD #4 that denies a defined article of faith (being sure to point out exactly which article of faith is being denied)?
Modernism often seeks to go undetected by making subterranean rather than overt attacks upon the Faith. AFD #4 is an official declaration of doctrine from a man sufficiently qualified. Making unclear, ambiguous statements on an occasion requiring precision is, objectively, an act of bad faith worthy of criticism. Is this heresy? The statements are strategically vague enough to resist clear-cut classification, but they certainly follow the familiar Modernist pattern of sounding heretical-and-or-deceptive. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is prudent not sinful to conclude it is a duck.
-
Let's just hope that during his time of spiritual wanderings in the desert he doesn't post his ambiguous ramblings here and confuse others (which I believe is the ultimate goal of his frenemies). Don't be a patsy.
God knows; time will tell.
-
.
This unrelenting fixation on #4 of the AFD is useless and inconsequential.
The entire AFD is TRASH, and only leads souls to hell. There is nothing
good about it. Like Vat.II the poison is throughout. It is the offspring of
the grand sewer of all heresies, Modernism, and as such, is heretical,
since Modernism is heresy.
So quit worrying about #4, for crying out loud. Don't waste your time.
Move on!
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=25804&min=40#p4)
Sean,
You're developing scruples.
You are forgiven.
Go have beer and forget about it.
Watch the new video (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Video-Interview-of-Frs-Pfeiffer-and-Hewko-July-12-2013) of Frs. Hewko & Pfeiffer on this heretical AFD.
-
Now, certainly I believe Bishop Fellay used diplomatic language in this provision, and hoped it would be acceptable to both modernist and traditionalist.
But that Rome did not accept it seems to evince that they too realized this provision (#4) was not a blanket acceptance of V2, and this explains why they came back with a specific requirement that all the docs of V2 be explicitly accepted before any accord could take place.
Question: Did all the other Eccesia dei groups have to "explicitly" accept all the V2 docuмents before being readmitted? I was not aware that they did. Unless these other groups were required to do the same, I find the reason you provide for sspx not being canonically accepted not very satisfactory.
-
.
Just think: +Fellay and his Menzingen cronies are probably all sitting
at a table with their laptops purchased with voluntary donations from
the impoverished Faithful, and reading this thread, laughing their
heads off!!
They're entertained by how much consternation one tiny paragraph
can make -- and it's not even the worst one! They could be paying
off their wagers with each other because nobody had thought that
#4 would be the winning paragraph! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Mr. Johnson, you're making yourself look pretty foolhardy.
(22 pages in 27 hours on this???!!!)
-
Sean,
I've only read a few pages of this thread, and that's really enough. As an uneducated person on this forum-high school-why concern myself with this anyway. As a resistance priest told me earlier THEY ARE CHANGING THE FAITH! I'd go crazy trying to figure out their liberalism, modernism, etc.
-
Sean,
I've only read a few pages of this thread, and that's really enough. As an uneducated person on this forum-high school-why concern myself with this anyway. As a resistance priest told me earlier THEY ARE CHANGING THE FAITH! I'd go crazy trying to figure out their liberalism, modernism, etc.
Excellent point!
As Fr. Pfeiffer says, "You don't argue with a Modernist."
Just like you don't enter a debate with the devil.
Correction: 22 pages in 17 hours, not 27 hours.
-
That is true.
-
Dear Sean,
Your priest is wrong. In this article (http://aveclimmaculee.blogspot.fr/2013/06/la-declaration-doctrinale-de-mgr-fellay_27.html (http://aveclimmaculee.blogspot.fr/2013/06/la-declaration-doctrinale-de-mgr-fellay_27.html)) , sacerdos explains :
1) About this text : “The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens - in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit - certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated(8)."
These lines comes from the Roman preambule proposed by Rome to Bp Fellay the 14th September 2011 and that Bp Fellay did not wanted to sign because it wasn’t acceptable. So Bp Fellay has just copied this from a modernist text. So it doesn’t answer yet to our question but it is a good clue to be very distrusful.
Now, let’s look at the text : “The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council”
This quote, says sacerdos, is the implicit acceptance of the hermeneutic of continuity. Why ? because if Vatican II is studied in the light of the true Tradition (that is the Tradition of before Vatican II), the true Tradition of course rejects and condemns Vatican II.
Now, that is not what Rome and what Bp Fellay wanted to mean. They wanted to mean that it is possible, in a certain way, to accept Vatican II if we interpret texts in a traditional way, which is completely impossible and false. Because you can’t interpret heresies in the light of tradition and some of the texts of Vatican II are heretic.
Fr Chazal explained very well that “the light of Tradition” and “the hermeneutic of continuity” are two expressions to mean the same wrong idea, that is : it is possible to accept the teachings of Vatican II if we look at them in a traditional way. So “The light of Tradition” concept is a disguise for “hermeneutic of continuity”. It means the same.
Moreover, sacerdos explains that the expression “entire Tradition” is modernist in the context. This expression, he says, did not exist before Vatican II and is the method which modernists use to tell us that Vatican II and the post-conciliar Magisterium belong to the Tradition. So this expression, taken from the Roman declaration is not acceptable because it means that.
Now, let’s see the second part of the sentence :
" which, in turn, enlightens - in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit - certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated (8)."
Sacerdos says that Vatican II could be said having enlighten the catholic faith only on one little detail : the sacramentality of episcopacy. But even about that, because it is not a shared doctrine, it is not sure.
Sacerdos says that this council is a cancer and that it devasted the church, so we can’t say it has enlightened the catholic doctrine on certain aspects. He says this statement is false and pernicious.
He says that the 3 mains errors of the concile : religious liberty, false oecuмenism and collegiality are neither in the Holy Scriptures, nor in Tradition, so these errors can’t enlighten certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the church…
Now, let’s notice : it is not said that certain texts of Vatican II enlighten the doctrine. No. It is said that Vatican II, [that is implicitly the whole concile], enlightens certain aspects of the life and doctrine. So Bp Fellay says implicitly by this words that the whole concile enlightens certain aspects of the doctrine, without rejecting anything from this concile…
When we name something, by naming, we mean the whole thing. If we want to mean only a part of the thing, we must give an explicit precision. It is not because it is said that the Concile enlightens certain aspects of the life and of the doctrine that it means that the concile is not accepted entirely. If Bp Fellay had wanted to mean that he did not accepted the whole concile, he would have written : “certain texts of Vatican II enlighten”… But this is not the case.
The first part of this quote is anyway the acceptance of the whole concile, without any distinctions, in the hermeneutic of continuity.
So don’t worry,dear friend. Don’t make apologizes. And leave your eminent priest who is getting completely wrong… That is the consequence of his silence. He is getting blind… And I am afraid that he could make harm to you… and so, consequently to the Resistance.
-
.It's been a month now - the previous post was made on the 96th
anniversary of the Vision of Hell and the Third Secret of Fatima, and
tomorrow is the 96th anniversary of the Freemasonic Abduction of
the shepherd children who are now saints in heaven, while the
Freemason who kidnapped them is most likely burning in hell, as he
died unrepentant according to all known indications.......................
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=25804&min=0#p4)
Oh, come on SeanJohnson. Spend one month in Mexico or Brazil or France and they will explain to you what DDD (my other post today) is. Let me know if you need precise addresses of the contemplative monks who will explain this to you. [The only] thing they do [all] day long [is]: PRAY.
Huh?
Here's Elsa's "other post" from that day, July 12th, SeanJohnson:
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=25791&min=15#p4)
...
The AFD (April Fifteenth Declaration; Father Hewko [quoting Fr. Chazal]) is called in some other places of the world DDD (Diabolical Doctrinal Declaration). Since I am a very simple person, I like this last one. [It is easier] for me to understand.
In retrospect, it is inescapable that here is one CI member wringing his
hands in consternation that he has perhaps been too harsh on the poor,
mild mannered author of the abominable AFD, and thus begs forgiveness
for having been perhaps too harsh, while there is another, much more
simple and less worried CI member who calls a spade a spade, and says
the lousy thing is "Diabolical."
I like that.
There is a certain grace that sees the devil in the details. :devil2:
And it is by that same grace, with our cooperation, that we consequently
may well simply steer clear of the diabolical deception -- that is,
provided we cooperate with the grace, that we recognize the grace, that
we really intend to seek it out and make it our guide and rule of life.
On the other hand, without that intention, when one hears the words that
come from this grace, one will not recognize the effect, and one will pass
over it with something like this:
"Huh?"
-
I disagree:
Ambiguity is the use of language capable of disparate meaning.
"Certain aspects" is not an ambiguous phrase:
It stands in clear contradistinction to "all aspects."
Dear Sean,
Ambiguity is the use of language capable of disparate meaning.
Deliberate use of ambiguous language in matters of doctrine is modernism, plain and simple
"Certain aspects" is not an ambiguous phrase:
When used in relation to Vatican II, it most certainly is. Whenever the council uses such phrases as "certain aspects" and in a "certain way" it is always a use of unfixed meaning by which an aberration or error of doctrine is to be hidden.
It stands in clear contradistinction to "all aspects."
That is a Ratzingarian use of language meant to diffuse the original questionable phrase.
The point is that this whole statement is in and of itself indeterminate as to its precise meaning and this priest is giving you a fine lesson on Conciliar apologetics. He attempts to read it in a "good" way, while what that docuмent otherwise implies in its modernist language is entirely unacceptable to the Catholic mind.
It is shameful that a Catholic Bishop who lives under the name of Saint Pius X would author or submit such a thing.
We could use a bit of justice for Beppo here.
-
.
We could use a bit of justice for Joey here?
Whoever has referred to St. Pius X as "Beppo" before? He was from
the north of Italy, of Polish lineage, and the nickname of Giuseppe
in the north is "Beppe," not Beppo.
-
.
We could use a bit of justice for Joey here?
Whoever has referred to St. Pius X as "Beppo" before? He was from
the north of Italy, of Polish lineage, and the nickname of Giuseppe
in the north is "Beppe," not Beppo.
Flame of White, an excellent and enjoyable account of his life relates that his family referred to him as Beppo.