Zenit.org

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Dave' date='Nov 15 2004, 07:20 PM'] It's not based on opinion, really. You're either in communion with the true Church or you're not. To have attitudes that make one indistinguishable from schismatic traditionalists puts one outside the Church. [/quote]
To be in schism one must formally adhere to schism (that is, to reject the authority of the See of Peter) or commit some schismatic act. To simply "have attitudes that make one indistinguishable from schismatic traditionalists " does not, in itself constitute schism.

[quote]We still love you even though you are in schism to the One True Church of Christ. [/quote]

This is completely out of line. Bro. Adam, you have absolutely no authority, nor the competence, to make sucha a claim.

[littleflower+JMJ]

CMOM IS RIGHT!! when is she not? lOl (all hail Motherofphatmass!!!)


ZENIT ROCKS MY SOCKS OFF!!!









sign up today!!









they are tighter than my grandpa's suspenders!!

[Dave]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 15 2004, 08:18 PM'] To be in schism one must formally adhere to schism (that is, to reject the authority of the See of Peter) or commit some schismatic act.  To simply "have attitudes that make one indistinguishable from schismatic traditionalists " does not, in itself constitute schism.



[/quote]
But it can still be mortally sinful.

[quote]This is completely out of line.  Bro. Adam, you have absolutely no authority, nor the competence, to make sucha a claim.[/quote]

The truth hurts, dude.

Edited November 16, 2004 by Dave

[Brother Adam]

[quote]have attitudes that make one indistinguishable from schismatic traditionalists [/quote]

The whole point being is that you know it is wrong in light of church teaching. No one is saying you can't side with schismatic traditionalists, but the fact is if you reject the Second Vatican Council and if you reject the Pope, you reject the Church and her teachings.

The whole point to being Catholic is to choose right or to choose wrong. If you are going to choose wrong, don't be wishy washy about it. Don't dabble a little in the right and dabble a little in the wrong, go with Screwtape the whole way. To try to choose some right and some wrong and calling it all right is basically being protestant.

And I have every right to my opnion and that is what I gave. If you don't like it, don't read it.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote]QUOTE 
We still love you even though you are in schism to the One True Church of Christ. 



This is completely out of line. Bro. Adam, you have absolutely no authority, nor the competence, to make sucha a claim.
[/quote]

I suppose saying zenit is not orthodox is an act of schism.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 15 2004, 08:00 PM'] You gots a choice, take your pick:

Be in the barque of Peter, or swim with the sharks [/quote]
That's exactly what I'm saying!

OUTSIDE THE CHURCH NO SALVATION -Church teaching since day 1

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote]The whole point being is that you know it is wrong in light of church teaching. No one is saying you can't side with schismatic traditionalists, but the fact is if you reject the Second Vatican Council and if you reject the Pope, you reject the Church and her teachings. [/quote]

I never said the Pope is not the Pope. I never said Vat II is not Catholic. It seems though that the Council has errors in it that contradict Church Tradition. Vatican II was not an infallible Council. It proclaimed no new doctrine.

[quote]And I have every right to my opnion and that is what I gave. If you don't like it, don't read it.[/quote]

According to which Church teaching? The Bill of Rights? Sounds like Americanism to me... but what does a 'schismatic' know?

[Dave]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 15 2004, 11:29 PM'] That's exactly what I'm saying!

OUTSIDE THE CHURCH NO SALVATION -Church teaching since day 1 [/quote]
But the Church doesn't teach the extreme view of it that you espouse. At one time it was a legit theological opinion, but the doctrine has developed past that point, so holding such ideas is no longer permissible.

[Dave]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 15 2004, 11:31 PM'] It seems though that the Council has errors in it that contradict Church Tradition. Vatican II was not an infallible Council. It proclaimed no new doctrine.



[/quote]
Wrong, wrong, wrong!

Vatican II did not intend to teach infallibly by the usual norms of the Extraordinary Magisterium. Instead it intended from the start to use the norms of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (or the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium), which is just as infallible although not as definitive or formal. This form of the Magisterium arises when the Pope on his own or in union with the bishops gives a positive teaching of the faith which clearly is intended for the universal Church.

As Vatican I taught in its Dogmatic Decree on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 3 "On Faith":

All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith and which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed.

It is therefore not necessary to employ the standard solemn format in order for the Pope and the bishops in communion with him to teach infallibly even at the highest level, De Fide. Vatican II would use the authority of the Extraordinary Magisterium to promote a comprehensive exposition of the Catholic faith in the manner of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. This was an unprecedented idea and it is understandable that it was difficult to categorize in more traditional terminology. Nevertheless, it is perfectly in line with previous Church teaching Fr. Yves Congar explained:

The only passage of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church that could be considered a truly dogmatic declaration is the one that concerns the sacramentality of the episcopate (LG III, n. 21): in fact, it settles a question that until now had been freely disputed by theologians. At the same time it is proposed as a teaching on the same level with the others, without the use of the emphatic, repeated and solemn formulas that normally introduce a "definition."… The manner of expressing it is not that of a dogmatic definition, but the matter is so important, the place the place it occupies in the doctrine of the episcopate so decisive, that one can hardly see how on this point the council has not issued a definitive judgment… On so many other points… one might dare to say that by a unanimous act of the extraordinary Magisterium the council has proposed the common doctrine of the ordinary, universal magisterium. This is not the same as a "definition," but it does suffice for the doctrine thus proposed to be binding as teaching on which the Catholic Magisterium is in unanimous agreement.

A teaching can be infallible without being definitive or dogmatic. Such an infallible teaching may not be the last word on the subject, but a Catholic is not permitted to contradict what it clearly says. It stands as a guideline to further speculation, not as an endpoint in itself. An infallible statement is one without error, not necessarily one that contains the fullness of truth. Hence, further conditions and exceptions may be recognized at a later time. Nevertheless the teaching does bind the Catholic conscience to a religious submission of will and intellect.

Note that "infallible" isn't synonymous with "the Extraordinary Magisterium" and definitive teaching. This is an incorrect use of the terminology.

There was another agenda for Vatican II as well. In 1870, Vatican I had closed prematurely as the Masonic armies lead by Cavour descended upon Rome. The council had not completed the dogmatic decrees on the Bishops in the Church and Divine Revelation. The original schemas had been prepared and saved for later deliberation. These schemas were included in the preparation for Vatican II in order to complete the work of Vatican I. Ultimately, they would become the two DOGMATIC Constitutions promulgated by VCII: Lumen Gentium (On The Church) and Dei Verbum (On Divine Revelation).

Before I get into specifics, I will discuss the overall set up of the Council as an indicator for its level of teaching authority. At the 1st Ecumenical Council in 325 AD, there were 318 bishops present but the Pope did not attend himself. In fact, at most of the 21 Councils, the Popes were not present. At Trent, over the 18 years that the Council was in process, the Pope never attended a single session. Participation at Trent even by the bishops was variable. In the early sessions in 1545 (which included the important 6th Session on justification) there were never more than 68 bishops present for voting. At the closing session in 1563, there were 280 bishops, but, again, no Pope. In contrast over the 3 years of Vatican II, 2500 bishops took part and the Pope was present for EVERY session. Unlike previous Councils in which the Popes objected in retrospect to some of the conciliar documents, the Pope reviewed the documents BEFORE they were voted on and made sure that they were worded specifically as he wanted them to be. Furthermore, these documents were worked and reworked so that the bishops would accept them by a virtual consensus and not just by a simple majority. The care that went into the conduct of the Council lead Cardinal Ratzinger to state the following concerning the teaching on the episcopate in Lumen Gentium (LG) Chapter 3:

The conciliar text by far surpasses the ordinary declarations of papal magisterium including the encyclicals, regarding the theological obligation that it entails. It is a document produced by the most intense work over many years, and it expresses the sense of its faith at which the whole Church assembled in council has arrived. It has formulated this document as a profession of its Credo… The conclusion is that it has an importance of the first rank among modern doctrinal texts, in the sense that it is a sort of central interpretation.

Pope Paul VI himself became quite annoyed at the attempts by minimalizers to treat Vatican II’s teachings as if they could be dismissed as merely "pastoral" and not binding. At the opening of the 3rd Session of Vatican II, he said:

It is the role of the council to settle some difficult theological controversies…to explain to the faithful of the Catholic Church, and to the brethren separated from it, the true notion of the orders of the sacred hierarchy… and to do this with its certain authority, which may not be called into doubt.

It is therefore clear that Pope Paul VI considered the teaching of Vatican II to be "certain" and beyond "doubt." Given what he had said elsewhere that Vatican II did not teach in the usual manner of the Extraordinary Magisterium, he must have considered the teachings of Vatican II to be infallible via the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. While no new dogmas were produced, it is clear that it is not possible for a Catholic to reject the teachings of Vatican II. While these teachings may someday be more definitively promulgated, they will never be contradicted.

This is also confirmed by the manner in which the documents of Vatican II have been used subsequently by the Popes and the bishops throughout the world. Large sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church are merely verbatim quotes from Vatican II. The same is true in several post-conciliar papal encyclicals and other documents of the Holy See. The Magisterium does not use Vatican II’s documents as if they were "not binding" on the faithful. Quite the contrary, the Popes have been and remain ardent supporters of Vatican II.

Most commentators consider that the most clearly dogmatic statement from the 16 documents of VCII was the statement on the nature of the episcopate in LG chapter 3:

This sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal shepherd, established his holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as he himself had been sent by the Father (Jn 20:21), and he willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in his Church even to the consummation of the world…And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful. Continuing in that same undertaking, this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the Successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the visible head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God…

Therefore, the sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles, as shepherds of the Church, and he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and him who sent Christ (cf. Lk 10:16)…

The Holy Synod teaches, moreover, that the fullness of the sacrament of orders is conferred by Episcopal consecration…

Just as in the Gospel, the Lord so disposing, St. Peter and the other apostles constitute one apostolic college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, the Successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are joined together…

The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the Successor of Peter, and it is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them. This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act…

Prior to LG, it had been held by some that the consecration of a bishop was a separate sacrament. There was also some question as to the status of the bishops after the strong reinforcement of Papal authority by Vatican I. Did the supreme papal power make the bishops redundant or merely extensions of Pope in their local churches? These statements were intended by Vatican II to settle the matter in question "continuing in the same undertaking" to complete what Vatican I had started.

Note the use of the phrases "This council teaches…" and "This council is resolved to declare..." Similar formulae are used throughout the 16 documents of Vatican II whenever the bishops wanted to emphasize their intended teaching. In some cases it reaffirmed previously defined teaching. In other cases it broke new ground.

In LG, chapter 8, paragraph 54 it says:

Wherefore this holy synod, in expounding the doctrine on the Church, … intends to describe with diligence both the role of the Blessed Virgin in the mystery of the Incarnate Word and the Mystical Body, and the duties of redeemed mankind toward the Mother of God…

This prefaced the first systematic exposition of Mariology ever made by an Ecumenical Council. It presented many of the arguments used by modern Mariologists to advocate the Fifth Marian Dogma. While LG 8 by itself does not establish any dogma, it does "describe with diligence" the watershed of 19th & 20th Century Mariology and of the Church’s mature beliefs about Mary. As such, it commits the Catholic Church irrevocably to the doctrine of the Spiritual Motherhood of Mary.

There is another more subtle result of LG’s teaching on ministry. In paragraph 20, it says:

Bishops, therefore, with their helpers, the priests and deacons, have taken up the service of the community, presiding in place of God over the flock whose shepherds they are, as teachers for doctrine, priests for sacred worship, and ministers for governing.

One of the other open questions about the sacrament of orders was whether or not the lowest level of major orders (Subdeacon) was considered a sacrament. In the ministry of the Latin Rite, there were 4 minor orders (porter, lector, exorcist, & acolyte) and 3 major orders (subdeacon, deacon, & priest). The deliberations at VCII made it clear that only bishops, priests, and deacons had received the sacrament of Holy Orders. The other 5 orders were considered to be sacramentals and were not mentioned. As a result of this deliberation, Pope Paul VI restored the permanent diaconate to the Latin Rite (See Ad Pascendum, 1972) and suppressed the orders of porter, exorcist, and subdeacon (See Ministeria Quaedem, 1972). This overturned over 1500 years of traditional practice and settled a dogmatic question concerning the sacraments that had been argued since the Middle Ages.

In the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum (DV), it says the following:

9. Hence, there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end…

10. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the Word of God, committed to the Church…. It is clear, therefore, that sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

This settles a dispute that arose over the ambiguity of the wording of the Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures from Session IV of the Council of Trent. Many Counterreformation scholars had argued that Trent treated Scripture and Tradition as two separate sources. The section on Scripture and Tradition in Chapter 2 of the Constitution on the Catholic Faith from Vatican I took no sides on this issue. This two-source idea was used to justify the primacy of Tradition over Scripture. Tradition was seen as was more complete and useful ecclesiologically. Scripture could be virtually ignored as a source of immediate Church teaching. These scholars wanted to use the vocabulary and categories of scholastic theology as normative for Catholic dogmatics.

Other scholars gave greater importance to Scripture and argued that the use of biblical categories and exegesis should be the norm for Catholic dogmatics. Some argued that Scripture and Tradition were not independent of each other and that they represented one and the same process of revelation so that neither one was superior to the other. Some others thought that both sources should be place on equal footing. Still others (primarily from the Eastern Church) wanted to use traditional Patristic methods as more normative than those of the Schoolmen.

Dei Verbum settled this dispute. It insisted that Scripture and Tradition were inseparable not only here-and-now but also in the way they had interacted in the past. This attitude opened up all the possibilities and in fact it typified the way that the Council itself did its exposition. The amount of systematic quotation from Scripture, the Church Fathers, and later theologians is unprecedented by any previous Council. This same eclectic methodology can be seen in the new Catechism. It was a blow to the dominance of "manual theology," but it made aggiornamento possible.

There are other similar examples of important teachings from Vatican II.

In summary, Vatican II was a General Council of the Catholic Church called by Pope John XXIII with the explicit purpose of making a positive statement of the Catholic faith to the modern world. The Council was also intended to complete the unfinished work of Vatican I and to settle some long-standing disputes on dogmatic issues. By design, it did not use the traditional methods of proclamation used at earlier Councils with exposition of questions, the formulation of definitive canons, and the invocation of anathemas against dissenters. Nevertheless, it occupied the efforts of most of the bishops of the world and the Popes themselves over several years. There were several levels of teaching in the documents of the Council, with some statements being considered infallible though not strictly dogmatic. Nevertheless, the extraordinary forum was used to proclaim the truths of the Catholic faith to the whole world using an ordinary teaching style. This unusual exercise of the Magisterium was innovative, but nonetheless authoritative. As such some of the teachings of Vatican II must be considered formally in fallible.

The Church has received several of the teachings of Vatican II as the definitive word in some controversial issues. This is reflected in the subsequent opinions and teaching of the Popes, the bishops, and the Curia. This unanimity by the college of bishops with the Pope as its head also meets the criteria for infallible teaching. While Vatican II did not proclaim any dogmas, it did proclaim some teachings that the faithful must accept. While not everything that the Council taught is of the same weight, the exposition of all 16 documents gives a faithful systematic presentation of the Catholic faith.

[CatholicCrusader]

I didn't read all of that, but I may when it's not so late... in any event Paul VI added a note to Lumen Gentium himself that said: nothing in this is infallible unless expressly stated otherwise, which it never did...

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 16 2004, 12:29 AM'] That's exactly what I'm saying!

OUTSIDE THE CHURCH NO SALVATION -Church teaching since day 1 [/quote]
AS usual you are right up to a point...

You aren't the one who decides WHO IS IN THE BOAT!

You don't get to set the rules. If a doctrine has developed past Trent [which means we understand the Dogma better, and it has] you have no right to reject it.
So if the Church says there is baptism of desire and baptism of blood, then there is. You have no clue to the boundless perfect mix of the mercy and justice of God.

Brother Adams point is that you talk Catholic, but think protestant.
God is not bound by his Sacraments.

Edited November 16, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[popestpiusx]

Folks, you are missing something key here. You are accusing people of things without proper evidence and without properly defining your term. For instance, accusing people of being schismatic evidently without knowing what that even means.

Also, there is a key distinction to be made between what is legally orthodox and what is ontologically orthodox. They are quite different. What is legally orthodox is not necessarily true. What is ontologically orthodox (as the name indicates) is always true.

It seems to me that many of the things you claiming are heresy are in fact legally orthodox (theological opinions tolerated by Rome).


Let me give an unrelated example. Prior to the solemn defining of the Immaculate Conception it was legally orthodox to hold the opposite opinion, though ontologically it was unorthodox. This is especially notable considering that the Church celebrated the Feast of the Immaculate Conception for centuries before the declaration.
There have always been theological opinions that contradict what the Church teaches as a matter of the ordinary magisterium, that are nonetheless tolerated.

It is well known that I disagree with CC on the issue of baptism of desire (and the baggage that goes with it). It is, in my humble opinion, a theological error. However, to accuse CC of being a heretic or schismatic, especially based soley upon what he posts on one website, is not merely absurd, but downright unjust and uncharitable.

No Bro. Adam, we are not entitled to our opinions when those opinions are baseless and defamatory.

And yes, Dave, the truth does hurt sometimes. But neither you, nor anyone else on this website, has established that your accusation is true.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 16 2004, 08:53 AM'] the Church says there is baptism of desire and baptism of blood [/quote]
I certainly believe this is true, but it is not derived from this far to ambigious notion of "development of doctrine."

[cmotherofpirl]

You know my point is the church has studied and written a few things since the Council of Trent.

[Brother Adam]

[quote]No Bro. Adam, we are not entitled to our opinions when those opinions are baseless and defamatory[/quote]

Perhaps it is that you don't live in America, so I don't want to call anyone an idiot without first identifying the basic tenants of our constitution. The first admendment in our country allows us to speak our opinions freely. There is a certian limitation to that freedom, which I have by no means crossed, and therefore I will indeed continue to hold to my right as an American to share opinions, as unpopular as they may be. If you live in a country where free speech is not granted, I would die fighting with you to try to gain that freedom.

You may disagree with my opinion and believe it is baseless and defamatory but it is niether. If I said "The church has declared _________ a schismatic" then it would be baseless. Calling someone out who thinks and acts like a schismatic is not defamotory, it is an accurate opinion.

Yes, the ultra traditionalist opinions may still be tolerated by the church, but they are still called out for what they are - unorthodox. And no Catholic has any good cause to hold to them. It sounds as stupid as John Kerry who "personally opposes" abortion yet still will approve of all and any form of abortion.