Posted on 12/21/2011 2:15:10 PM PST by NYer
Same difference. Read Dominus Iesus.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
“Somebody said that the SSPX is Protestant because it rejects Vatican II like Protestants rejected Trent.”
Indeed. That would be me.
“That is the main reason I referenced the contradictions between Trent and Vatican II”
Which is why you referenced the specific objections which concern the vernacular? The vernacular is an issue, and a big one with SSPX. If you’re conceding that issue, I’m happy to move on.
“really just about every council and encyclical prior to 1960 is in conflict with Vatican II”
Which is no different than what protestants say about Trent vs the Ecumenical councils. I should know because I was one.
“I acknowledge the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church as the mother and teacher of all churches”
No problem there.
“I promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ.”
Hrm. True obedience. That might be a bit difficult for you.
“I likewise undoubtedly receive and profess all other things delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred Canons, and general Councils, and particularly by the holy Council of Trent, and by the ecumenical Council of the Vatican, particularly concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching.”
That would seem to apply also to Vatican II. So far Trent is three for three.
“I condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto, and all heresies which the Church hath condemned, rejected, and anathematized.”
Ooh. That’s gonna sting. Four now.
“This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved”
He says ‘true Catholic faith’, not ‘true Catholic Church’, sir. Trent doesn’t say what you would have it say.
“which I now freely profess and to which I truly adhere”
Freely profess? Isn’t that what I was saying?
Pius IX did not have to speak ex cathedra on religious liberty since he was simply reiterating long-established doctrine. Nevertheless, he certainly made clear that his condemnation of religious liberty was infallible. Wouldn't you agree?
Vatican II developed the teaching of the Church on religious liberty. Apparently, you didn’t read all of Fr. Most’s confutation of Abp. Lefebvre’s interpretation of Quanta Cura.
The premise of Fr. Most’s essay is faulty. The existence of error in Vatican II does not render the promises of Christ void. The Church does not genuinely teach Vatican II errors since the Church is perfect and therefore never contradict herself. Besides, Pope John XXIII declared in his opening address at Vatican II that the council would define no new doctrine. Therefore, the subsequent attempts to define new doctrine could not have enjoyed the protection of the Holy Spirit.
Dignitatis Humanae was directed at the state using physical coercion.
Quanta Cura clearly allows for civil authorities to restrain religious liberty. Please reread post 111 of this thread.
“Pius IX did not have to speak ex cathedra on religious liberty since he was simply reiterating long-established doctrine.”
That’s not what Trent says. Trent is arguing just the opposite, that the true Catholic Faith must be undertaken freely.
“The existence of error in Vatican II does not render the promises of Christ void.”
Again, Vatican II does no such thing. You may believe it renders the promises of Christ void, but that is because you have it wrong on salvation.
As Trent said, Extra Fidae, Nulla Salus. “Outside of the Faith, no salvation.”
“Quanta Cura clearly allows for civil authorities to restrain religious liberty. Please reread post 111 of this thread.”
Insofar as said restraints do not deprive one of religious liberty.
The premise of Fr. Most’s essay is faulty
>>How so?
I would love to see the scripture proof of that contention.
“Which is no different than what protestants say about Trent vs the Ecumenical councils. I should know because I was one.”
Then you should know that Protestants invoke novel interpretations of scripture that contradict the previous consensus interpretations of the fathers, doctors, councils, and popes.
“The vernacular is an issue, and a big one with SSPX. If you’re conceding that issue, I’m happy to move on.”
Latin vs. vernacular is a relatively minor issue. Nobody has a problem with the non-Latin Eastern masses. The big issue is with the Tridentine vs. the Novus Ordo mass, since the Novus Ordo de-emphasizes the sacrificial nature of the mass.
“Hrm. True obedience. That might be a bit difficult for you.”
TRUE obedience means Pauline obedience, that is obedience to the true doctrine over the fallible whims of human officials.
“That would seem to apply also to Vatican II. So far Trent is three for three.”
Only insofar as Vatican II conforms to previously defined INFALLIBLE doctrine as stated in the creed.
“He says ‘true Catholic faith’, not ‘true Catholic Church’, sir. Trent doesn’t say what you would have it say.”
That is a referencing faith in “the Holy Roman Church” previously defined in the creed. (http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Symbola/Tridentinae.html)
“Freely profess? Isn’t that what I was saying?”
Nobody ever said otherwise. The Church does not recognized forced conversion.
The existence of error in Vatican II does not render the promises of Christ void. The Church does not genuinely teach Vatican II errors since the Church is perfect and therefore never contradict herself. Besides, Pope John XXIII declared in his opening address at Vatican II that the council would define no new doctrine. Therefore, the subsequent attempts to define new doctrine could not have enjoyed the protection of the Holy Spirit.
I was referring to Paul 6’s promulgation of Vatican II.
Pius IX reigned almost 300 years after Trent. I certainly do not believe that Vatican II renders the promises of Christ void.
“Insofar as said restraints do not deprive one of religious liberty.”
This directly conflicts with Quanta Cura. Please reread post 111 on this thread.
So let’s see if I have this straight.
1, you believe that people do not have freedom of thought or conscience.
2, you believe that you are condemned to hell if you aren’t Catholic.
3, you believe that a mass, if not celebrated in Latin is invalid.
So have I got that all right?
1. Wise government may tolerate error for the sake of peace, but error has no rights. I believe I have shown this to be traditional Church teaching.
2. I would certainly fear Hell if I fell into heresy, schism, or apostasy.
3. No. Where did you get that idea?
I found Fr. Most’s reconciliation of Vatican II’s teaching with the pre-Vatican II magisterium quite persuasive.
But then how certain bishops have twisted it becomes quite another issue.
Vatican II was an act of the ordinary magisterium to borrow the Scholastic term. It provided an authoritative interpretation of existing Catholic dogma.
Fr. Most is defending the party line by trying to square the circle. He admits that there is no right to error but overlooks the granting of such a right in the language of Dignitas Humanae and dominant interpretations of Dignitas Humanae (see post 111). Conversely, Fr. Most denies that a Catholic state has a right to suppress error by appeals to the irrelevant example of a Muslim confessional state and by ignoring the undeniable historic Church support for state suppression of error. Fr. Most places his own liberal bias above the traditional teaching of the Church.
Vatican II is written with in a vague, narrative style as to make it unclear. However, Paul 6 interpreted Vatican II to mean that the traditional confessional Catholic state was erroneous. This interpretation has been disastrous and must be reversed if the Church and Europe is ever to be restored.
So then would you endorse Leo X’s following statement against Luther?
33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm
“So then would you endorse Leo X’s following statement against Luther? 33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.”
Would it be too much to ask for heretics to be kept out of the theology chairs in seminaries?
Pope Pius XII had officially disciplined and silenced theologians such as Hans Küng, Karl Rahner, John Courtney Murray, Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac, Edward Schillebeeckx and Gregory Baum on suspicion of heresy. After Pius XII passed away, these same suspect heretics were put in charge of the Vatican II council. What does that tell you?
Even St. Thomas Aquinas was initially condemned as a heretic, but was later rehabilitated.
As an Eastern Catholic, I have no desire to go back to the calcified Neo-Thomism of the pre-Vatican II era that pretended to be codeterminate with Catholicism itself.
Eastern Christianity owes its heritage to an entirely different theological tradition that the New Theologians at least held in a higher esteem than the manualists.
After rehabilitation, did Aquinas go on to literally destroy the Church in every Western nation? That is what the vandals in charge of Vatican II did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.