Vatican II

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

the thing is i agree the sspx is in schism but,

but I agree with their arguments about relegious freedom especially, and other things.

I ask for Prayers,

Sam

[Dave]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 22 2005, 03:46 PM']the thing is i agree the sspx is in schism but,

but I agree with their arguments about relegious freedom especially, and other things.
[right][snapback]833983[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Actually, the Church has never contradicted its teachings on religious freedom. What used to be condemned is still condemned. But what Vatican II allowed is NOT the same kind of religious freedom that was formerly condemned. What Vatican II basically condemned was forcing people into atheism. You see, at that time many Catholic countries were also bastions of Communism, and so Catholics weren't exactly in a position to practice their faith freely.

[qfnol31]

Just for my clarification, do they equate religious freedom with religious toleration?

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

no I believe in relegious toleration.

can someone explain ecumenicism to me?

wasn't it condemned and never allowe until 1965?

[qfnol31]

[quote]A. In the East

As Constantinople had so often been in schism for a season, the popes took some time to realize that the schism accomplished by the Patriarch Cærularius was destined to continue. Even when they were at last disillusioned, they never ceased to regard the Eastern Christians as a choice portion of Christ's flock, [b]or to work for the restoration of that portion to unity according to their opportunities.[/b][/quote]

This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the topic of Ecumenism.

[quote]V. REUNION MOVEMENTS IN THE PRESENT AGE

In the present age the divisions of Christendom not only furnish its assailants with their most effective taunt, but constitute the most serious hindrance in the way of Christian work. Hence, among those who have inherited the condition of separation, the value of Christian unity has come to be much more deeply appreciated than ever before, and many active movements have been set on foot, and schemes devised, for its restoration. [/quote]

Remember, this was written well before Vatican II. Its [i]Imprimatur[/i] is from the early 20th century.

[quote]The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV
Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton Company
Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight
Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor
Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York[/quote]

[quote]The longing for the restoration of unity to Christendom, which is active in these and other ways, must be regarded by Catholics as one of the most precious features of the present age, and should enlist all their sympathy.[/quote]

Except for the [i]Imprimatur[/i] information, the rest of this was written in 1896.

The rest of the article is here: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15132a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15132a.htm[/url]

To be honest, I think the Society neglects history outside of Vatican II itself...unless the Catholic Encyclopedia is heretical.

[qfnol31]

[quote]no I believe in relegious toleration. [/quote]

Oddly enough, this is in a way tied up to Modern Philosophy.

(It's Spinoza and Bacon's fault!)

[cappie]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 23 2005, 05:35 AM']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]

This I posted in the Open Mic:
Vatican II Texts Were Misinterpreted, Says Pope
Explains Roots of Crisis That Hit Church in Wake of Council

VATICAN CITY, DEC. 22, 2005 (Zenit.org).- The crisis that arose in the Church after the Second Vatican Council wasn't due to the conciliar documents, but rather in their interpretation, says Benedict XVI.

The Pope made a long analysis of the legacy left by the 1962-1965 gathering of the world's bishops, when he met today with his aides in the Roman Curia to express his Christmas greetings.

The Holy Father asked rhetorically: "What has been good and what has been insufficient or mistaken?" in the implementation of the Council.

According to Benedict XVI, the reception of the Council's messages took place according to two interpretations that "confronted each other and have had disputes between them."

The first interpretation is the one the Pope called "hermeneutics of discontinuity and rupture" "between the pre-conciliar and post-conciliar Church."

According to this view, what is important about the Council is not its texts but the spirit of renewal brought to the Church, the Holy Father said. This view, he observed, "has often been able to make use of the media's liking, and also of a part of modern theology."

Of reform

The other interpretation is "the hermeneutics of reform," which was proposed by the Popes who opened and closed the Council, John XXIII and Paul VI, and which is bearing fruits "in a silent but ever more visible way," said Benedict XVI.

According to this view, the objective of the Council and of every reform in the Church is "to transmit the doctrine purely and fully, without diminutions or distortions," conscious that "our duty not only consists in guarding this precious treasure, as though we were concerned only with antiquity, but in dedicating ourselves with a firm will and without fear to the work that our age calls for," the Pope said.

"One thing is the deposit of faith, that is, the truths contained in our venerated doctrine, and another [is] the way in which they are enunciated, preserving however the same meaning and fullness," he said, echoing John XXIII.

In this way, the Council presented a "new definition of the relationship between the faith of the Church and some essential elements of modern thought," Benedict XVI pointed out. He insisted that "the Church, both before as well as after the Council, is the same one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, journeying through time."

"Today we can look back with gratitude to the Second Vatican Council," he added. "If we read and receive it, guided by an appropriate hermeneutic, it can be and will be increasingly a great force for the always necessary renewal of the Church."
ZE05122204

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

thank you Father.

Who am I to judge what the Pope does, or what the documents say? i am not an ordained member of the clergy, nor am i knowledgebale on the subject. I submit myself to the church. But i have learned something. The SSPX is very seductive and its hard for me to stay away from them, I really need to stay away from the Trad forum that i am on. I ask for your prayers.


God Bless,

Sam

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 22 2005, 03:46 PM']the thing is i agree the sspx is in schism but,

but I agree with their arguments about relegious freedom especially, and other things.

I ask for  Prayers,

Sam
[right][snapback]833983[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

What is the SSPX argument on freedom of religion? I'm having a hard time locating it right now. My search skills are very limited as I get older...how sad.

I did dig this up in the reading on religious toleration at New Advent (by far one of my favourite resources, as I bet you can tell ):

[quote]IV. THE NECESSITY FOR PUBLIC POLITICAL TOLERATION

Since the State may not pose either as the mouthpiece of Divine Revelation or as the teacher of the Christian religion, it is clear that in regard to matters of religion it can adopt a much more broad-minded position than the Church, whose attitude is strictly confined by her teaching. [b]The ethical permissibility, or rather the duty, of political tolerance and freedom of religion is determined by historical presuppositions and concrete relations; these impose an obligation which neither State nor Church can disregard.[/b] We will first consider the State in itself, and then the specifically Catholic State. [/quote]

[qfnol31]

Here is more on what the council said:

[url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_council...humanae_en.html[/url]

[quote]2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.[/quote]

As you read this, you have to in a way throw off your American tendencies and look at this from a European perspective. There Modernism abounds and things are really messed up. But this goes in line with what was taught before, namely that people must choose God by their own free will...this essentially seems to uphold that.

Well, I can post more if you want. I have tons of free time to read all of a sudden!

Oh, would you mind emailing me a link to the site? I think I know exactly which it is.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

the trad site?

[qfnol31]

Yep.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

i can't get to your emai im phishy

you mean the forum that im a member of?

[Akalyte]

Vatican II was good, it was just held during "the rise of the liberals" sixties. Those masters of misenterpretations didnt hesitate to screw everything up.

The documents of VII say Latin must still play a prominent roll, it didnt say get rid of latin and turn the catholic church into the tower of bable. Especially this nasty english language.

My priest says after VII, the liberals tried to turn the church into a "horizontal" "orginization" Making the church merely a human institute. I've experienced this.
I'm just glad our Holy Father is going to re-interpret it.

Edited December 23, 2005 by Akalyte

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

SO have I. and that is why the SSPX is so seductive in their position.