Posted on 02/11/2011 11:06:52 AM PST by verdugo
I agree with the take of the author on these two subjects. Paul VI is saying the smoke of Satan entered via Vatican II. The ambiguities in Vatican II allowed the progressivists (the smoke of Satan)to take control of the Church. Anyone that lived through it, and is still a Catholic today (the vast majority lost the faith), that does not see the cause and effect, has his head in the sand. Most Catholics today have been so dumbed down that they are Catholic in name only. It is rare to find a Catholic that lives the faith (practically 99% of Catholics have not or do not have the children that God wills for them, they use contraceptives or NFP)
Regarding the second point, it is you who adds that “all” that happened after Vatican II was caused by Vatican II, “all” is too broad. You'll have to define what you mean by all.
I didn't read your posting till this morning. It's alright with me if this has no caucus label at all on it. No big deal.
re:On the other issue, for the purpose of moderating the Religion Forum a "Catholic Caucus" includes every Freeper who currently believes in papal supremacy.
The sedevacantes believe in papal supremacy. Any Catholic that knows his faith knows that they can't be accused of that. On the contrary, because they believe so much in papal supremacy, they do not believe that the post Vatican II popes are valid post, because if they were valid popes they would not have taught heresy.
The sedevacantes can't be accused of one heresy. They are more Catholic than 99% of Catholics in the world today. All of the sedevacantes I have met, had very large families, they do not use contraceptives. That in and of itself makes them more Catholic than 99% of Catholics.
I think that the problem that the "Orthodox admirers" on FR have with sedevacantes is that the sedevacantes really know the faith, and they are a rebuke to the dumb down Catholics of today. The same viciousness as has been exhibited by the "Orthodox admirers" to the sedevacantes , was previously showered upon the SSPX, but now, they have to control themselves on that matter, because the pope is friendly to them. Sedevacantes, SSPX, strict EENS'ers, all of them really know and LIVE the faith, and thus they are a rebuke to todays typical dumb down Catholics.
That is what is happening here. Thank God we have freedom of speech on FR, or no one would hear anything on FR but the same dumb down Catholicism that is taught at the typical US parish.
Would you be so kind as to remove my posting #42?
Doesn’t Vatican II teach some things that are the opposite of the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church? See., e.g., scribd.com/doc/46116957
In all the discussions and debates I've engaged in with traditionalist, who I respect for their knowledge on the subject, they have shown me how everything that appears to be the opposite of what was consistently taught, actually can be interpreted according to tradition. It's an odd thing about Vatican II, it appears that the ambiguities are there as a snare for anyone that wishes to interpret Vatican II against 1900+ of consistent teaching, but they are not there for those who follow what the Cchurch has always taught:
Why God would allow these "ambiguities" to occur in Vatican II. ?
"Considering all that I have said thus far, especially concerning the ulterior motives of the liberal prelates and their virtual hijacking of Vatican II, I think Scripture has an answer as to why God would allow these "ambiguities" to occur. In short, there is an interesting working principle in Scripture. As a punishment for your sin, God will allow you to pursue, and be condemned by, what you sinfully desire. This is what I believe happened at Vatican II. The progressivist bishops and theologians sought for a way to push their heterodox ideas into the Church, so God allowed them to do so, as a witness and judgment against them. He would allow the Council to have its "ambiguities" so that those who would interpret them contrary to nineteen centuries of established Catholic dogma, would lead themselves into sin, and ultimately into God's judgment. Unfortunately, as is always the case, the sheep suffer for what the shepherds do wrong, and as a result, we have all been wandering in the spiritual desert of liberal theology for the past 40 years." (Article from Catholic Family News, Feb 2003, by Robert Sungenis)(1)
(1) In fact, the bad shepherds may be a chastisement for the sins of the sheep. Saint John Eudes, basing his words on Sacred Scripture, says that when God wants to punish his people, he sends them bad priests. See The Priest, His Dignity and Obligations, by Saint John Eudes, Chapter 2, "Qualities of a Holy Priest". (New York: P.J. Kenedy and Sons, 1947).
--------------------------------------------------------
I would not seek any answers about the Faith from Vatican II and would be leary of any theologian that exclusively refers to it.
Some argue the Second Vatican Council was merely pastoral and, therefore, not binding. How do you respond to this?
The problem here is the interpretation of the word “pastoral.” All councils are pastoral, in that they are concerned with the work of the Church — but this does not mean that they are merely “poetic” and therefore not binding. Vatican II is an official ecumenical council, and all that was said in the Council is therefore binding for everyone, but at different levels. We have dogmatic constitutions, and you are certainly obliged to accept them if you are Catholic. Dei Verbum discusses divine Revelation; it speaks about the Trinitarian God revealing himself and about the Incarnation as fundamental teaching. These are not only pastoral teachings — they are basic elements of our Catholic faith.
Some practical elements contained in the various documents could be changed, but the body of the doctrine of the Council is binding for everyone.[who is Catholic]
The emphasis was added as well as the portion in brackets for clarity. See the source.
Catholics should note this is Cardinal Mueller, who is still currently head of the Congregation of the office of Doctrine and Faith. So I think he should know what's "infallable" (or binding) and what isn't.
As I was perusing this thread before posting, I noticed verdugo (who is now banned) said the following in post 4:
Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI)also stated that Vatican II was not infallible.
“Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolates Vatican II and which provoked this opposition. There are many accounts of it, which give the impression that from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II. […] The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council.” (Address to the Chilean Episcopal Conference, Il Sabato 1988)
Another translation of same Address:
“The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.”
These words (by then Cardinal Ratzinger) are not in contradiction to those of Mueller. This is for the simple fact that both men are saying the same thing which is that Vatican II taught what the Church has always taught, it simply didn't define any dogma. However this doesn't necessarily mean the teachings there were/are not binding. Indeed it means the opposite, as to recognize consistent, historical, Traditional Church teaching is to recognize infallibility.
One must be careful not to conflate the fact that since VII didn't define dogma, this must mean it isn't binding to the Church Universal. This is not necessarily true, in every sense of the word "necessarily".
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.