Posted on 02/11/2011 11:06:52 AM PST by verdugo
Let me add that the progressivists who hijacked Vatican II, were not born over night, they were laying low since Pius X scattered them.
Msgr. Eugenio Pacelli, before he became Pope Pius XII and while he was still serving as Vatican Secretary of State during the reign of Pope Pius XI (early 1930's), made an astonishing prophecy about a coming upheaval in the Church:
"I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul. … I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past".
Pope Pius XII's biographer, Msgr. Roche, noted that at this moment in the conversation, according to a Count Galeazzi, “the gaze of the Pope, seen through the lenses of his glasses, became supernatural, and there emanated from his tall and slender body an irresistible mystical force.” Pius XII then said (in answer to an objection from a curial Cardinal):
"A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, “Where have they taken Him?”29
Long before Vatican II, the progressivist innovators were preparing themselves for the day when they could unleash their cesspool of novelties long before. Vatican II was their stage opening. The rest is history now, 50 years later.
By the way, I have no problems with sedevacantes, I can understand how they come to their conclusion. However, I'm not one of them. You seem to be scared to death of them. I'm not.
Sedevacantist article and website, not catholic and improperly labeled as a Catholic Caucus if its purpose is to serve as an inducement article against Catholicism and towards sedevacantism. ?
The sedevacantes are baptized Catholic, who LIVE the faith, they just don't believe the post Vatican II popes are valid popes. All the sedevacantes I've ever met had lots of children, that is, they don't use birth control. That in and of itself makes them more Catholic than 99% of people who call themselves Catholic today.
If the post Vatican II popes had behaved like the popes of the first 1960 years of the church, the sedevacantes would not have cause to think as they do. Outside of traditionalists, are the Protestants the only ones who see something wrong with popes who kiss Korans, and allow Hindu priestesses to put cow dung on their foreheads. Open your eyes!
The heresy of Modernism was all around. Why'd they ignore it?
The late Fr William Most understood many good things did come out of Vatican 11 as he explains in the article Doctrinal Authority of Vatican II
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/LG603.TXT
The Eastern Churches
.... we should not fail to note that the
Churches of the East from the beginning have a
treasury, from which the Western Church took many
things in liturgy, in spiritual tradition, and in
the juridical order. And it is important that
fundamental dogmas about the Trinity and the Word
of God who was incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
were defined in Eastern ecumenical councils.
The inheritance from the Apostles was
accepted in diverse forms and modes. These
things, besides external causes, because of a
lack of mutual understanding and charity, gave
the opportunity for separations.
15.All know with what love the Eastern Christians
conduct the sacred liturgy. In this liturgical
cult they praise Mary ever Virgin in very
beautiful hymns and they honor many Saints,
including Fathers of the universal Church. Since
those Churches, even though separated, have true
sacraments, a certain communication in worship,
in suitable circumstances and with ecclesiastical
approval, is not only possible but to be
encouraged.
In the East there are found the riches of
those spiritual traditions, especially monachism.
Monastic life moved from there to the West.
Let all know that the very rich Eastern
patrimony in liturgy and spirituality should be
venerated, conserved and cherished.
16.To remove all doubt, the Council declares that
the Churches of the East, mindful of the unity of
the whole Church, have the faculty of ruling
themselves according to their proper rules, since
they are more suited for the character of their
faithful.
17.Similar things are to be said about the
diverse theological expressions. It is not
surprising that certain aspects of a revealed
mystery at times are perceived more fittingly and
presented better by one than by the other, in
such a way that theological formulas often are
complementary rather than opposed. We note that
the theological traditions of the East are
excellently rooted in Sacred Scripture. So this
Council declares that all this patrimony,
spiritual, liturgical, disciplinary, and
theological, in the varied traditions pertains to
the full catholicity and apostolicity of the
Church.
18.Considering all these things, this Council
repeats what was said by previous councils and
Popes, namely, that to restore unity or conserve
it, nothing more than what is necessary is
demanded. (Cf.Acts 15.28).
“”Address to the Chilean Episcopal Conference, Il Sabato 1988) “”
Can you provide the actual Vatican document on this?
Read Dominus Iesus because Cardinal Ratzinger
references Vatican 11 many times
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.78
The Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation”,79 since, united always in a mysterious way to the Saviour Jesus Christ, her Head, and subordinated to him, she has, in God’s plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being.80 For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit”;81 it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit”.82
21. With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God — which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church — comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it “in ways known to himself”.83 Theologians are seeking to understand this question more fully. Their work is to be encouraged, since it is certainly useful for understanding better God’s salvific plan and the ways in which it is accomplished. However, from what has been stated above about the mediation of Jesus Christ and the “unique and special relationship”84 which the Church has with the kingdom of God among men — which in substance is the universal kingdom of Christ the Saviour — it is clear that it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her, even if these are said to be converging with the Church toward the eschatological kingdom of God
(78) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 9; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 846-847.
(79) Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 48.
(80) Cf. St. Cyprian, De catholicae ecclesiae unitate, 6: CCSL 3, 253-254; St. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, III, 24, 1: SC 211, 472-474.
(81) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 10.
(82) Second Vatican Council, Decree Ad gentes, 2. The famous formula extra Ecclesiam nullus omnino salvatur is to be interpreted in this sense (cf. Fourth Lateran Council, Cap. 1. De fide catholica: DS 802). Cf. also the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston: DS 3866-3872.
(83) Second Vatican Council, Decree Ad gentes, 7.
(84) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 18.
Because they were modernists themselves. The council was hijacked by the modernists.
I read it. What exactly are you trying to say with this posting. what is your point?
Again, what is the point of posting this? What does this have to do with the subject of this thread?
His point is that you having posted an heretical sede vacantist screed from an heretical sede vacantist web site, you went on to question whether or not Orthodox Christians are considered heretics by other Latin posters. Either of these actions should be sufficient to blow the “Catholic Caucus” designation behind which you try to hide. The Caucus label should be removed, unless of course FR is interested in fomenting intra Church strife to the benefit of posters from its more favored ecclesial groups.
This is a Catholic Caucus, you are not a Catholic.
On the other issue, for the purpose of moderating the Religion Forum a "Catholic Caucus" includes every Freeper who currently believes in papal supremacy.
When that decision was made, sede vacante was not an issue. If anyone wishes to further narrowly define the Catholic Caucus to exclude sedevacantists, it should be argued on a separate thread.
“You raised the Orthodox issue at post 24 and it was answered at 31 - so either the caucus must be expanded to “Catholic/Orthodox” or those two posts must be removed. If I don’t hear from you shortly I will remove those two posts.”
Is this a new rule? The original poster claimed the protection of the Caucus label and then proceeded to question whether Orthodox Christians are heretics (the article he quotes also accuses Pope Benedict of being a heretic but that’s another matter). Since when does a poster get to hide behind a Caucus label to attack others and with the result that unless he/she removes the caucus label, his offending post and any responses merely get removed?
What statement in the article or reply post (other than 24 and 31) speaks of the beliefs of non-members, i.e. any who reject papal supremacy?
The article posted, from an heretical, sede vacantist site, denies the binding authority of the teachings of Vatican II. In particular, Vatican II taught what stfassisi posted about the Orthodox Churches. By denying the authority of Vatican II, the article denies the validity and catholicity of the Orthodox Churches which was specifically declared by Vatican II and thus violates your own rules on the use of the Caucus label.
You haven’t tried to answer. You’ve done nothing but evade.
The article falsely presents Paul VI as blaming Vatican II for the “smoke of Satan” and falsely claims that all that happened after Vatican II was caused by Vatican II.
Focused enough? The article is a lie. You posted it. Without disclaimer.
Your point applies to both of stfassisi’s posts and therefore this thread cannot be a caucus. The caucus protection will be removed.
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.