Sspx-Judgment Day, Sept 14

[Aloysius]

he voted against that document, but he did indeed sign it. later he suggested that the paper he signed was simply acknowledging his presence at the vote, but the actual document that bears his signature is clearly the promulgation of the document. I don't begrudge him for opposing it later even though he had signed it, though; he clearly didn't agree with them at the time, either, but was signing as a sign of submission.

[quote][i]"Thus, during the final vote on the morning of December 7 (when the fathers had to choose between a simple approval or disapproval of the last draft), Lefebvre was one of the 70 — about 3 percent of the total — who voted against the schema. Nevertheless, when the supreme pontiff himself put his signature to the controversial declaration an hour or so later, the French traditionalist prelate followed suit, presumably as an act of submission of his private judgment to that of the Vicar of Christ.[/i]"[/quote]
Harrison, Brian W. (March 1994). "Marcel Lefebvre: Signatory to Dignitatis Humanae" [i]Fidelity Magazine[/i].

to say "what the Council fathers intended" is too simplistic. there were two opposing sides at the council, and two opposing things were intended. the fact that the Council CAN be read in the light of tradition doesn't mean that no rupture was intended by anyone present at the council, or that that mindset of rupture was not a source of many problems.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1316243415' post='2305771']
I don't begrudge him for opposing it later even though he had signed it, though; he clearly didn't agree with them at the time, either, but was signing as a sign of submission.
[/quote]

Is it true submission to sign something one opposes "out of a sense of submission" only to later [i]publicly[/i] criticize the document one submitted to and even signed? Does it really place oneself under the mission (sub-mission) of the Church and the Pope to do such a thing? Also as a general rule of thumb, I think that if a Council CAN be read in the light of tradition then that is the way it MUST be read, that is as long as one wants to take seriously the notion that Christ has guided the development of and protected his Church over the last 2000 years and continues to do so.

[bernard]

This interview is from 1978, it appeared in the the weekly newspaper the spotlight. Lefebvre says here he did not sign all the resolutions.
You do realize that if a previous pope condemns something and a new pope approves the same thing then you have a contradiction.
I suppose you don't feel any sense of obedience to these previous popes.


[b][color=#990099]You have debated and taken part in the deliberations of the second council of the Vatican, have you not?[/color][/b]

Yes.

[b][color=#990099]Did you not sign and agree to the resolutions of this council?[/color][/b]

No. First of all, I have not signed all the documents of Vatican II because of the last two acts. The first, concerned with "Religion and Freedom," I have not signed. The other one, that of “The Church in the Modern World”, I also have not signed. This latter is in my opinion the most oriented toward modernism and liberalism.

[b][color=#990099]Are you on record for not only not signing the documents but also on record to publicly oppose them?[/color][/b]

Yes. In a book, which I have published in France, I accuse the council of error on these resolutions, and I have given all the documents by which I attack the position of the council - principally, the two resolutions concerning the issues of religion and freedom and "The Church in the Modern World.”

[b][color=#990099]Why were you against these decrees?[/color][/b]

Because these two resolutions are inspired by liberal ideology which former popes described to us-that is to say, a religious license as understood and promoted by the Freemasons, the humanists, the modernists and the liberals.[/indent]

[b][color=#990099]Why do you object to them?[/color][/b]

This ideology says that all the cultures are equal; all the religions are equal, that there is not a one and only true faith. All this leads to the abuse and perversion of freedom of thought. All these perversions of freedom, which were condemned throughout the centuries by all the popes, have now been accepted by the council of Vatican II.

Edited September 17, 2011 by bernard

[Papist]

[quote name='bernard' timestamp='1316247451' post='2305774']
This ideology says that all the cultures are equal; [b]all the religions are equal[/b], that[b] there is not a one and only true faith[/b]. All this leads to the abuse and perversion of freedom of thought. All these perversions of freedom, which were condemned throughout the centuries by all the popes, have now[b] been accepted by the council of Vatican II[/b].
[/quote]
Please provide Church documents that state this.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Papist

[bernard]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1316249487' post='2305777']
Please provide Church documents that state this.
[/quote]


These are Lefebvre's words not mine. I would also like to know which specific documents he is referring too.
I'll see if I can find them later on.

[bernard]

Well that didn't take long. The script in red is from the Vatican II documents, followed by commentary and opposing decrees by previous popes.

Principal heresies of Vatican II.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/Privatican.htm


[b][i]6. Nostra Aetate[/i][/b][b] - [/b][i]Decree on Non-Christian Religions[/i]

[i]Nostra aetate[/i] # 3:
"[color=#B22222]The Church also looks upon [u]Muslims[/u] with respect. They worship the one God living and subsistent, merciful and mighty, creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to humanity and to whose decrees, even the hidden ones, they[u] seek to submit themselves whole-heartedly[/u], just as Abraham, to whom the Islamic faith readily relates itself, submitted [u]to God[/u]...[u] Hence they have regard for the moral life and worship God in prayer, almsgiving and fasting[/u].[/color]"[73]

Here we find Vatican II teaching that Muslims worship the one God, the Creator of Heaven and earth. This is similar to, but slightly different from, the heresy that we have already exposed in [i]Lumen Gentium[/i]. Here Vatican II does not say that Muslims worship God who will judge mankind on the last day, but that Muslims worship the One God who [b][i]created heaven and earth[/i][/b]. The false god of the Muslims did not create heaven and earth. The Most Holy Trinity created heaven and earth.

Pope St. Leo IX, [i]Congratulamur[/i][i] vehementer[/i], April 13, 1053:
"[b]For I firmly believe that the Holy Trinity, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit[/b], is one omnipotent God, and in the Trinity the whole Godhead is co-essential and consubstantial, co-eternal and co-omnipotent, and of one will, power, majesty; [b]the creator of all creation, from whom all things, through whom all things, in whom all things which are in heaven or on earth, visible or invisible[/b]. Likewise I believe that each person in the Holy Trinity is the one true God, complete and perfect."[74]

[i]Nostra Aetate[/i] 3 also says that the Catholic Church looks upon Muslims with respect, who seek to submit themselves to God wholeheartedly, just as Abraham did. But Vatican II's admiration for the infidel Muslims is not shared by the Catholic Church. The Church desires the conversion and eternal happiness of all the Muslims, but she recognizes that Islam is a horrible and false religion; and she does not pretend that they submit themselves to God. She knows that they belong to a false religion.

Pope Eugene IV, [i]Council of [/i][i]Basel[/i], Session 19, Sept. 7, 1434:
"Moreover, we trust that with God's help another benefit will accrue to the Christian commonwealth; because from this union, once it is established, there is hope that very many from [b]the abominable sect of Mahomet[/b] will be converted to the Catholic faith."[75]

Pope Clement V, [i]Council of [/i][i]Vienne[/i], 1311-1312:
"[b]It is an insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the Christian faith[/b] that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens (i.e., The followers of Islam, also called Muslims) live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests, commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore [b]the infidel Mahomet[/b], loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place... [b]This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful.[/b] [b]These practices cannot be tolerated without displeasing the divine majesty[/b]. We therefore, with the sacred council's approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands. We enjoin on Catholic princes, one and all.. [b]They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet[/b]... Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness."[76]

Pope Benedict strictly forbade Catholics to even give Muslim names to their children under pain of damnation.

Pope Benedict XIV, [i]Quod[/i][i] Provinciale[/i], Aug. 1, 1754:
"The Provincial Council of your province of Albania... decreed most solemnly in its third canon, among other matters, as you know, that [b]Turkish or Mohammedan names should not be given either to children or adults in baptism... This should not be hard for any one of you, venerable brothers, for none of the schismatics and heretics has been rash enough to take a Mohammedan name, and unless your justice abounds more than theirs, you shall not enter the kingdom of God[/b]."[77]

Vatican II's document [i]Nostra Aetate[/i] likewise expresses its great esteem for Jews who reject Our Lord Jesus Christ.

[i]Nostra aetate[/i] # 4:
[color=#B22222]"Since, therefore, [u]the spiritual heritage common to Christians and Jews is so great, this synod wishes to promote and recommend that mutual knowledge and esteem[/u] which is required especially from biblical and theological studies and from friendly dialogues.[/color]"[78]

[i]Nostra aetate[/i] # 4:
[color=#B22222]"As holy scripture is witness, Jerusalem did not know the time of its visitation, and for the most part [u]the Jews did not accept the Gospel[/u], indeed many of them opposed its dissemination. [u]Nevertheless[/u], according to the apostle, because of their ancestors [u]the Jews still remain very dear to God[/u], whose gift and call are without regret."[/color][79]

The Catholic Church does not look upon the Jews with esteem, but with sadness, acknowledging that they exist in a state of rejection of the true God; and that they need to be recalled from their false religion in order to be saved.

Pope Benedict XIV, [i]A Quo Primum[/i] (# 4), June 14, 1751:
[b]"Surely it is not in vain that the Church has established the universal prayer which is offered up for the faithless Jews from the rising of the sun to its setting, that the Lord God may remove the veil from their hearts, that they may be rescued from their darkness into the light of truth[/b]. For unless it hoped that those who do not believe would believe, it would obviously be futile and empty to pray for them."[80]

Pope Benedict XIV is referring to the prayer in the Catholic liturgy which implored God to convert the perfidious Jews. The word perfidious means unfaithful.[81] Not surprisingly, in 1960, the phrase "perfidious Jews" was removed from the Good Friday liturgy by Pope John XXIII. Furthermore, Pope Eugene IV dogmatically defined that everyone who practices the Mosaic law - that is, the Jewish religion - cannot be saved.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, [i]Cantate[/i][i] Domino[/i], Feb. 4, 1441:
[b]"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic Law[/b], which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, [b]ceased[/b], and the sacraments of the New Testament began; [b]and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them[/b] as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, [b]sinned mortally[/b]. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; [b]but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation.[/b] [b]All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation[/b], unless someday they recover from these errors."[82]

Besides Jews and Muslims, [i]Nostra Aetate[/i] made sure to remind the world how great Buddhism is and how this false religion leads to the highest illumination.

[i]Nostra aetate[/i] # 2:
[color=#B22222]"[u]In Buddhism[/u], according to its various forms, the radical inadequacy of this changeable world is acknowledged and a way is taught whereby [u]those with a devout and trustful spirit may be able to reach[/u] either a state of perfect freedom or, relying on their own efforts or on help from a higher source, [u]the highest illumination[/u].[/color]"[83]

And the false religion of Hinduism is praised for its inexhaustible wealth of penetrating philosophical investigations, as well as its ascetical life and deep meditation.

[i]Nostra aetate[/i] # 2:[color=#B22222]"[u]Thus in Hinduism the divine mystery is explored [/u]and propounded with an inexhaustible wealth of myths and [u]penetrating philosophical investigations[/u], and liberation is sought from the distresses of our state either [u]through various forms of ascetical life or deep meditation or taking refuge in God[/u] with loving confidence."[/color][84]

Amid all of this blasphemy, no mention is made that these infidels must be converted to Christ; no prayer is offered that the faith may be granted to them; and no admonition that these idolaters must be delivered from their impiety. What we see is praise and esteem for these religions of the devil. What we see is an unequivocal syncretism, which treats all religions as if they are paths to God.

Pope Pius XI, [i]Mortalium[/i][i] Animos[/i] (# 2), Jan. 6, 1928:
"... [b]that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy[/b], ... [b]Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it[/b], and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; [b]from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion."[85][/b]

Pope Pius IX, [i]Qui Pluribus[/i] (# 15), Nov. 9, 1846:
[b]"Also perverse is that shocking theory that it makes no difference to which religion one belongs, a theory greatly at variance even with reason[/b]. By means of this theory, those crafty men remove all distinction between virtue and vice, truth and error, honorable and vile action. [b]They pretend that men can gain eternal salvation by the practice of any religion,[/b] [b]as if there could ever be any sharing between justice and iniquity, any collaboration between light and darkness,[/b] [b]or any agreement between Christ and Belial."[/b][86]

Pope Eugene IV, [i]Council of Florence[/i], Cantate Domino, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442: "The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in the eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives..."[87]

Pope Gregory XVI, [i]Summo[/i][i] Iugiter Studio[/i] (# 2), May 27, 1832:
[b]"Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life."[/b][88]

Edited September 17, 2011 by bernard

[dominicansoul]

Bernard, these are the exact parts of the Council Documents, my ex-Dominican friend has sooooo much trouble with. She stormed outta our Council class when these were discussed. I didn't applaud her for her stand, even though I struggle with these as well... and I continue to struggle with them... I also struggle with the statement that the Church, as a society organized in the modern world "subsists" in the Catholic church and yet, santification and truthful elements are found outside. I have struggled greatly with these words, but I'm not leaving the Catholic church over documents that do not bear any canonical weight... it is not a Council to end all Councils, and I believe these things you are bringing up are some ideas that can and should be widely discussed.

[vee]

The documents are saying ELEMENTS of truth. not the fullness but bits and pieces exist outside the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Thus there are ELEMENTS of truth in Buddhism, Hinduism and the SSPX but not the fullness.






edited typos

Edited September 17, 2011 by vee8

[vee]

What some read as praise etc of the various other religions I read as a simple description of them, that the document is just saying what they are.

[bernard]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1316263216' post='2305793']
Bernard, these are the exact parts of the Council Documents, my ex-Dominican friend has sooooo much trouble with. She stormed outta our Council class when these were discussed. I didn't applaud her for her stand, even though I struggle with these as well... and I continue to struggle with them... I also struggle with the statement that the Church, as a society organized in the modern world "subsists" in the Catholic church and yet, santification and truthful elements are found outside. I have struggled greatly with these words, but I'm not leaving the Catholic church over documents that do not bear any canonical weight... it is not a Council to end all Councils, and I believe these things you are bringing up are some ideas that can and should be widely discussed.
[/quote]

No traditionalist I know thinks they are leaving the Church. I believe the Church has been hijacked and sabotaged and the faithful who stay there (in the Novus Ordo) are being led into apostacy. These VII documents are not the only reason I attend the SSPX, its everything, the new mass, the weird spaceship churches, the effeminate priests. I mean when I was home in Canada last year my mom said oh you don't call him a priest anymore there is a new name for him, can't remember the name. I want the same mass that all the other Catholics up until the 1960s had. Plus this weird Orwellian language, ordinary form, extraordinary form. How can the mass of all time be the "extraordinary form."
Why all these new names and new translations?

Edited September 17, 2011 by bernard

[MithLuin]

Look at the document, and then look at the previous declarations used to counter it. The document acknowledges that Muslims are monotheists. It doesn't say they 'got it right' - clearly, as Christians, we think they are quite wrong. But even the popes from the 1300's and 1400's knew that what was to be condemned was the reverence for [i]Mohammed[/i], the false prophet. Where do they say that the worship of Allah is the worship of a false god?

I think that when studying the Vatican II document on other religions, it's very important to do so in the context of [url=http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html]Dominus Iesus (1999)[/url]. Here, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith clarifies what is and is not meant by this document, and affirms that not all religions are equally good. In fact, the same congregation has been busy condemning Catholic theologians who have suggested that in the years since the Council.

I realize that for many traditionalists, Vatican II was the licence people took for an 'anything goes' approach to the Catholic faith. But in reality...that spirit of rebellion was present long before the Council and will have to be dealt with for some time to come. Lefebvre saw that there were rebels at the Council, and this deeply disturbed him. Fair enough. I do not agree with the actions he took as a result of this, nor do I think he 'got it right' while the Council was all wrong. The Church (in all ages) is in constant need of renewal. The apostles spent years with Jesus, and Peter, James and John saw him transfigured on the mountain...but still, in the garden, Jesus had to ask them, 'Could you not keep watch one hour with me?' So...work for renewal and vigilance at the same time


[b]Bernard[/b], language is a living thing. There will always be new words. If you study modern Spanish, don't expect to be able to pick up [i]Don Quixote[/i] and understand it as easily as a modern novel. We need footnotes to understand Shakespeare. But yes, Catholic priests are still called priests. If they are a pastor of a parish, they can be called pastor, but when addressing them, we say 'Father' as we always have.

[vee]

[quote name='bernard' timestamp='1316269487' post='2305820']

No traditionalist I know thinks they are leaving the Church.
[/quote]

Well they are.

[vee]

Mithluin

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='bernard' timestamp='1316269487' post='2305820']

No traditionalist I know thinks they are leaving the Church. I believe the Church has been hijacked and sabotaged and the faithful who stay there (in the Novus Ordo) are being led into apostacy. These VII documents are not the only reason I attend the SSPX, its everything, the new mass, the weird spaceship churches, the effeminate priests. I mean when I was home in Canada last year my mom said oh you don't call him a priest anymore there is a new name for him, can't remember the name. I want the same mass that all the other Catholics up until the 1960s had. Plus this weird Orwellian language, ordinary form, extraordinary form. How can the mass of all time be the "extraordinary form."
Why all these new names and new translations?
[/quote]

i find you being a Canadian more disturbing than you being a follower of the SSPX

[vee]

Canadians are just disturbing in general