qfnol31 Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 [quote name='thessalonian' date='Dec 22 2005, 12:25 PM']I am sure you will and you will be leading him down the path to schism once again. You can decieve yourself and pull others in to your denial of Papal Primacy all you want I suppose. If you are participating with the trads you are a schismatic. I am sure the decrees of flourence make you wish this were not true but you know in your heart it is. [right][snapback]833813[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Whoa now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted December 22, 2005 Author Share Posted December 22, 2005 why did he say that to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted December 22, 2005 Author Share Posted December 22, 2005 ok here is how i feel: I think the Vatican II documents were ambigious. i think it led to teaching today that is bad. But the SSPX is in schism, i want nothing to do with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheoGrad07 Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 [quote name='thessalonian' date='Dec 22 2005, 11:25 AM']I am sure you will and you will be leading him down the path to schism once again. You can decieve yourself and pull others in to your denial of Papal Primacy all you want I suppose. If you are participating with the trads you are a schismatic. I am sure the decrees of flourence make you wish this were not true but you know in your heart it is. [right][snapback]833813[/snapback][/right] [/quote] What the heck? That's rediculous! I don't even know where to begin! "The path to schism" "denial of Papal Primacy" -- these statements do NOT apply to Q! "if you are participating with the trads you are a schismatic" -- I think you are running the danger of being more authoritative than the Pope. "Trads" is too vague a term to make such a condemnation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted December 22, 2005 Author Share Posted December 22, 2005 (edited) yeah Q is a champion of orthodoxy Edited December 22, 2005 by Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 [quote]Pope Paul VI, at the close of Vatican II on Dec. 7, 1965, confirmed that the Council did not make infallible pronouncements. He said that the Council "as much as possible wanted to define no doctrinal principle of an extraordinary dogmatic sentence."[/quote] Here is a common misconception that falls oddly to both the SSPX and the like and Revisionists (Fr. Curran). And sadly I see this happen in every part of the Church. Just because something isn't definied as a dobma doesn't mean it's not infallible. Defined dogmatic statements are few and far between. They can happen in an [i]Ex Cathedra[/i] statement (twice so far) and in a council, such as Calcedon. Dogmatic statments are not the only type of infallibility. Vatican II actually said something about this in [i]Lumen Gentium[/i] 25: [quote]Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)[/quote] [quote name='Cardinal Ratzinger commenting on [i']Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/i]]This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.[/quote] The point with this is to show that without a definition there is still the possibility for an infallible statement (more often more than the possibility). I'm trying to think of something that's along those lines but a solid example escapes me after I wake up early in the morning. Oh well. But the same that goes for the Holy Father also goes for the Council. Sure there were no dogmas defined. We didn't need to talk about the hypostasis of the Word made Incarnate. That was a dogma in its time. Rather, we needed things that dealt with the Church itself as a whole, what Vatican I intended to do and could not because of wars. It addresses the role of Bishops and clergy. Maybe that's what's meant by pastoral, that it addresses the pastoral side of things? I'm not quite sure. But that's not much of an issue here anyways. Here is an old thing written on Vatican II on here. I'm not positive I agree with everything because it's been a while, but I mostly do. [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=22679"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=22679[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 22 2005, 12:35 PM']ok here is how i feel: I think the Vatican II documents were ambigious. i think it led to teaching today that is bad. But the SSPX is in schism, i want nothing to do with them. [right][snapback]833825[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I think the last part's your better point. I'm not sure the Vatican II documents were as ambiguous as we're led to believe, but I think that there is allowed room for development (I'm thinking the word [i]subsists[/i] here). As for the middle point, I actually disagree. I think that people took things way beyond what they should and became lazy or caught up in what they wanted and excused it with what they thought the Church was teaching. I say this because of my experiences growing up where very few people put effort into my education (I'm actually happy about this, but that's another story ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheoGrad07 Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 Matters of faith and morals can be defined infallibly by the "extraordinary papal magisterium" -- an ex cathedra statement by the Holy Father. The Assumption and the Immaculate Conception are the two times this has happened. Matters of faith and morals can also be defined infallibly by the "extraordianry episcopal magisterium" -- all the bishops gathered in an ecumenical council. Papal infallibility was defined by Vatican I. Finally, matters of faith and morals can be taught infallibly by the "ordinary universal episcopal magisterium" -- basically, a teaching held unanimously by all bishops throughout all time, such as the dignity of the human person. These areas of infallibility are outlined in Lumen Gentium 25. Vatican II didn't define any new dogma infallibly. The documents of course made reference to teachings that have been taught infallibly, but it didn't teach anything new. In my experience (and I've had quite a bit of first-hand experience), many of the criticisms "traditionalists" make of Vatican II are accurate if applied to the common practice in the Church -- but I've found, often to my surprise, that the criticisms fall apart when applied to the documents and directions of the council itself. It's obvious there are many abuses that have exploded in the last 40 years -- but there have been abuses throughout the Church's history. To blame it all on Vatican II and to condemn the council, the Church Fathers who participated, and the Bishops and Popes who have succeeded them is, in my opinion, reactionary. Sure there are problems, and I agree certain things need to be reformed -- but don't jump ship! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 22 2005, 12:35 PM']ok here is how i feel: I think the Vatican II documents were ambigious. i think it led to teaching today that is bad. But the SSPX is in schism, i want nothing to do with them. [right][snapback]833825[/snapback][/right] [/quote] 1. Have you read them? I mean, have you actually read all of them? 2. How? What proof do you have to offer? I have proof that offers that modernist teachers and heretic, having nothing to do with VII, lead to the problems in the American Church. 3. That's good to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 [quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 22 2005, 11:29 AM']Whoa now. [right][snapback]833818[/snapback][/right] [/quote] My apologies. I apparently have you confused with someone else. I am truly sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 LoL, it's okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 [quote name='TheoGrad07' date='Dec 22 2005, 11:36 AM']What the heck? That's rediculous! I don't even know where to begin! "The path to schism" "denial of Papal Primacy" -- these statements do NOT apply to Q! "if you are participating with the trads you are a schismatic" -- I think you are running the danger of being more authoritative than the Pope. "Trads" is too vague a term to make such a condemnation. [right][snapback]833830[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I had q mixed up with another. I have apologized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 I feel better now, too. I wasn't going to say anything, but I didn't think Q was that kinda dude. : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheoGrad07 Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 (edited) [quote name='thessalonian' date='Dec 22 2005, 11:57 AM']I had q mixed up with another. I have apologized. [right][snapback]833852[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Apology graciously accepted -- though I know it wasn't to me! : Edited December 22, 2005 by TheoGrad07 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted December 22, 2005 Author Share Posted December 22, 2005 (edited) [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Dec 22 2005, 12:55 PM']1. Have you read them? I mean, have you actually read all of them? 2. How? What proof do you have to offer? I have proof that offers that modernist teachers and heretic, having nothing to do with VII, lead to the problems in the American Church. 3. That's good to know. [right][snapback]833848[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I have read some of the documents, and have read church teaching before that. its bad because i just ordered open letter to confused catholics for my grandfather, now i will have to burn it and get him another gift. Edited December 22, 2005 by Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now