.

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.

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.

Dear Sean,

Your priest is wrong. In this article (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.  

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.

Flame of White, an excellent and enjoyable account of his life relates that his family referred to him as Beppo.