Inquisitor and neo-Catholics

[philothea]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 20 2006, 07:44 PM']   
[right][snapback]893303[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The phishies sure are biting lately!

[jezic]

is this topic one of pride?

(Not to pin it on anyone, but be careful. There are many traps awaiting this line of thought)

[Dave]

[quote name='DominusTecum' date='Feb 20 2006, 08:06 PM']Would you rather I called you "heretics?" This appelation is not attached to Catholics, per se, but to those who have deviated from the faith, perhaps consciously, perhaps unconsciously, and can thus no longer be accounted the normal term "Catholic." However, their errors are not grievous, formal, or pertinacious enough to merit the appelation "heretic." Consequently, just as you have given Catholics the prefix "trad," so we give you the title of "NeoCath." "Indultarian" works as well, I suppose.
[right][snapback]893278[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Objectively speaking, those who hold the beliefs you hold are the ones who are heretics -- by refusing to believe or obey Vatican II's decrees and by considering the Novus Ordo Mass intrinsically bad, when Trent says that no lawful rite of Mass can ever be intrinsically bad.

[Guest DominusTecum]

Right. So tell me exactly what Vatican II document I "reject?" Tell me what was defined dogmatically for me to believe de fide?

[Era Might]

[quote name='DominusTecum' date='Feb 20 2006, 11:58 PM']Right. So tell me exactly what Vatican II document I "reject?" Tell me what was defined dogmatically for me to believe de fide?
[right][snapback]893449[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Just because a doctrine of the Church is not defined "de fide" does not mean it can be set aside by the faithful. It is enough that the Church proposes a doctrine for belief, as then-Cardinal Ratzinger explained in the CDF commentary on John Paul's "Professio Fidei":

[quote]With regard to the nature of the assent owed to the truths set forth by the Church as divinely revealed (those of the first paragraph) or to be held definitively (those of the second paragraph), it is important to emphasize that there is no difference with respect to the full and irrevocable character of the assent which is owed to these teachings. The difference concerns the supernatural virtue of faith: in the case of truths of the first paragraph, the assent is based directly on faith in the authority of the Word of God (doctrines de fide credenda); in the case of the truths of the second paragraph, the assent is based on faith in the Holy Spirit's assistance to the Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium (doctrines de fide tenenda).[/quote]

A few more relevant treatments of this question:

[quote]Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

--Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Letter "Humani Generis"[/quote]

[quote]This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.

--Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen Gentium"[/quote]

[quote]The root of this schismatic act [of Marcel Lefebvre] can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".

--Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter "Ecclesia Dei"[/quote]

Edited February 21, 2006 by Era Might

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='DominusTecum' date='Feb 20 2006, 09:58 PM']Right. So tell me exactly what Vatican II document I "reject?" Tell me what was defined dogmatically for me to believe de fide?
[right][snapback]893449[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I am sure that you know there are two types of assent that Catholics are required to give:

[b]Ecclesiastical Faith[/b]- holding that the truths not contained in divine revelation but are connected with it and have been defined by the Church with the exercise of its infallible power.

and

[b]Religious assent[/b]- those truths that authoritatively but not infallibly proposed by the Church. The Catholic must give to these an internal assent, based on the fact that the authoritative teaching power of the Church is assisted by the Holy Ghost.

So your question is misleading in the fact that you have implied that Catholics must only give assent to de fide dogma, when Catholics are infact also required to give assent to the ordinary magesterium. But let us go ahead and begin with the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church: Lumen Gentium. Do you hold and give assent to all teachings in this dogmatic constitution?

I believe that we are much more in the same boat than we both realize. While we both give assent to the VatII council, we lament that abuses that have resulted from it. I hope that I have not overstated your position there.

[Era Might]

Among the "new points of doctrine" spoken of by Pope John Paul II and proposed by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council for belief, there was a development in the Church's social doctrine:

[quote]Over and above all this, the council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society.

--Declaration on Religious Freedom, "Dignitatis Humanae"[/quote]

Edited February 21, 2006 by Era Might

[KnightofChrist]

[quote]We've recently been tipped off to a thread on the "Phatmass" forums, which is highly critical of our friend the Inquisitor Generalis. We just thought we'd show you all because we're so amused at this. It is stereotypical Neo-Catholicism, with a capital N. The good archbishop is a "schismatic," or "schizzie," as the "cool" phatmassers like to say. Not only that, but it seems that if they are to be believed, the Inquisitor is a protestant and needs to go read Paul to find out about how to deal with divisions in the Church. We wonder if they mean St. Paul, or St. Paul VI?
[/quote]

Its sad to see you good protestant people having a good jolly laugh at real Catholics. How can a "archbishop" be good if he rejects the true faith and therefor becomes a heretic and then leads others to sin along with him? Theres nothing good about that...

[quote]It seems that they can't stomach condemnations of their foul "rock 'n roll" either. When called anti-missionaries, they ask for the Inquisitor to "come defend himself," as if somehow his words are already condemned.
[/quote]

Oh we can stomach whatever hate and untruths bigots throw at us. Inquisitor was given the chance to reply to his false statement of phatmassers being "anti-missionaries", if he keeps on making up such lies it is he that will condemn himself, not us.
[quote]We'd personally very much like to see some defenses on their part, of their progressivist "diversity." Truth can't be fought with error, and the Phatmassites seem to be desperate to embrace heathenism and promote it as "cool," and "sweet" for young Catholics. They have no conception of the superiority of the Catholic religion, and thus the superiority of western civilization, and Catholic culture, as opposed to pagan tribal beats and overly sexualized forms of music that any sane individual of fifty years ago (before cultural relativism set in) would condemn. Come to think of it, any sane person today would condemn it too, which is why it is causing the brouhaha that it is.
[/quote]

You all sound like racist bigots... your anti-diversity, and you refer to black music as "pagan tribal beats" and superiority of western civilization? Those sound like code words for racism... And it is you all whom have no conception of the superiority of the Catholic faith, you reject the head of the superiority of the Catholic religion, the Pope, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.
[quote]Given at Kirksville, on the twentieth day of February, A.D. MMVI, in the first year of our pontificationate.
[/quote]
Dont you mean anti-pontificationate since you reject the true Supreme Pontiff?