Posted on 02/27/2011 2:18:28 AM PST by verdugo
"Why God would allow these "ambiguities" to occur in Vatican II. (and other magisterial documents)?
"Considering all that I have said thus far, especially concerning the ulterior motives of the liberal prelates and their virtual hijacking of Vatican II, I think Scripture has an answer as to why God would allow these "ambiguities" to occur. In short, there is an interesting working principle in Scripture. As a punishment for your sin, God will allow you to pursue, and be condemned by, what you sinfully desire. This is what I believe happened at Vatican II. The progressivist bishops and theologians sought for a way to push their heterodox ideas into the Church, so God allowed them to do so, as a witness and judgment against them. He would allow the Council to have its "ambiguities" so that those who would interpret them contrary to nineteen centuries of established Catholic dogma, would lead themselves into sin, and ultimately into God's judgment. Unfortunately, as is always the case, the sheep suffer for what the shepherds do wrong, and as a result, we have all been wandering in the spiritual desert of liberal theology for the past 40 years." (Article from Catholic Family News, Feb 2003, by Robert Sungenis)(1)
(1) In fact, the bad shepherds may be a chastisement for the sins of the sheep. Saint John Eudes, basing his words on Sacred Scripture, says that when God wants to punish his people, he sends them bad priests. See The Priest, His Dignity and Obligations, by Saint John Eudes, Chapter 2, "Qualities of a Holy Priest". (New York: P.J. Kenedy and Sons, 1947).
My best advice to the common layman is:
Do not seek any answers about the Faith from Vatican II or any theologians/sources that refers exclusively to it. always remember that Rat poison is 99% nutritious grain.
I invite Catholics to break themselves away from posting anything from sources that mention Vatican II or post Vatican II writings, for then, they will discover the wealth and depths of CLEAR REAL teachings of 1900+ years of the Church.
Why does God create people knowing they will commit a specific sin at a specific time, and then punish them for it?
Ping!
Specifically, what do you you see as the ambiguities in Vatican II?
Please cite.
If by ambiguities you mean that the writers did not take into account the possible misuse, abuse of the document and the flat out sinfullness of those who would seek to do those things then you are probably right.
Vatican 2 is a like a letter to the faithful - who knew that there were so many unfaithful or deluded souls in the Church who would be so easily mislead by those on their way to destruction. No document is perfect in it’s ability to take into account the reaction of sin to it’s appearing!
If there is a problem it is that the writers did not take into account or see the already abominable paucity of knowlege of the general church populace and their waning commitment to do anything other than turn up to mass on sundays
Mel
The ambiguities have been the subject of debate for 50 years now and still going. The red flag of ambiguity can be found in terms such as: The "spirit of Vatican II", "the real meaning of Vatican II", "the liberal, wrong meaning of Vatican II", the "traditional" interpretation of Vatican II",and such. Those explanations of the ambiguities are the subject of as many documents and articles, as there are stars in the sky. The ambiguities are like personal interpretation of scripture, a never ending search with no final answers.
Because a discussion on the ambiguities will just open up a Pandora's Box, and end up in another never ending debate about just what Vatican II meant, I purposely left out the examples of ambiguity in the whole article of this thread, and do not wish to discuss them here. ( For those who wish to see the whole article with the authors examples of ambiguities see the link: http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/abiguities-vatican2-1.htm )
This thread is for only one purpose:
"By posting only articles that refer exclusively to Vatican II and after writings, one leaves themselves open for not knowing what the Catholic Church has always taught for 1900+ years. Post Vatican II writers have the habit of ignoring all of antiquity and taking off into fancies, novel teachings, and ambiguous sentimentality which actually can confuse and teach the opposite of what the Church had always taught".
I invite Catholics to break themselves away from posting anything from sources that mention Vatican II or post Vatican II writings, for then, they will discover the wealth and depths of CLEAR REAL teachings of 1900+ years of the Church.
"If by ambiguities you mean that (SOME) of the writers did not take into account the possible misuse, abuse of the document and the flat out sinfullness of those who would seek to do those things then you are probably right.
Vatican 2 is a like a letter to the faithful - who knew that there were so many unfaithful or deluded souls (specially among the shepherds) included in the Church who would (MISLEAD) and be so easily mislead by those on their way to destruction.
If there is a problem it is that (SOME) of the writers did not take into account or see the already abominable paucity of knowlege of the general church populace and their waning commitment to do anything other than turn up to mass on sundays (clergy and laity)
Ok Point taken on that as SOME obviously did know what they were doing!
The point that I am trying to make though is that the people of the Church, although they do not bear as great a burden and respinsibility, are still responsbile for their own understanding or lack of it and their own actions or lack of them prior to and post V2 - It didn’t happen overnight or only post V2
Mel
***Why does God create people knowing they will commit a specific sin at a specific time, and then punish them for it?***
God gives us free will. If He created ONLY people who would never sin, then we would already be in heaven. We must earn heaven. But always remember that there is no such thing as predestination. God doesn’t decide in advance who will be saved. But since He knows everything, He knows who will make it to heaven or hell. That doesn’t mean that He deliberately chooses people to go to hell. He simply knows it in advance.
***Why does God create people knowing they will commit a specific sin at a specific time, and then punish them for it?***
God gives us free will. If He created ONLY people who would never sin, then we would already be in heaven. We must earn heaven. But always remember that there is no such thing as predestination. God doesn’t decide in advance who will be saved. But since He knows everything, He knows who will make it to heaven or hell. That doesn’t mean that He deliberately chooses people to go to hell. He simply knows it in advance.
You are absolutely correct. Let me add that: All the planned subterfuge was ALL undertaken by wolves in sheep's clothing, the progressivist clergy who were ordained from as early as 1900! All those progressivists bishops and Periti were trained during the period from 1900 to 1950's! The progressivists who hijacked Vatican II, were not born over night, they were laying low since Pius X scattered them
Msgr. Eugenio Pacelli, before he became Pope Pius XII and while he was still serving as Vatican Secretary of State during the reign of Pope Pius XI (early 1930's), made this statement about a coming upheaval in the Church:
"I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul. … I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past".
Pope Pius XII's biographer, Msgr. Roche, noted that at this moment in the conversation, according to a Count Galeazzi, “the gaze of the Pope, seen through the lenses of his glasses, became supernatural, and there emanated from his tall and slender body an irresistible mystical force.” Pius XII then said (in answer to an objection from a curial Cardinal):
"A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, “Where have they taken Him?”29
Long before Vatican II, the progressivist innovators were preparing themselves for the day when they could unleash their cesspool of novelties. Vatican II was their stage opening. The rest is history now, 50 years later.
Thank God for the increasing number of Traditional Roman Catholic chapels and churches.
Yeah, God was pretty dumb to let the apostles put so many ambiguities into Holy Scripture.
And Jesus was awful dumb when he spoke in such veiled and obscure parables that even his apostles asked him to tell them what they meant.
Yeah, and the Founders were dumber than dumb to put so many ambiguities into the Constitution that it has had to be continually intepreted over the centuries.
If they all had just written with ZERO ambiguities, no one would ever, ever, ever have been able to read into these documents something stupid. /sarc
Ambiguities, schmambiguities: in the eye of the beholder.
The fault for misreadings, false readings, Spirit of Vatican II, liberal readings rests with
gasp
not the document
but
with the false readers. Including SSPX false readers as well as Leftist liberal false readers.
But somehow I have a sinking feeling that what I just wrote will be too ambiguous to prevent some readers from reading into it what they wish.
If I could only write as unambiguously as Verdugo does.
The point is that the ambiguities were purposely put there by the progressivists, the documents were purposely compromised, HENCE:
"By studying only sources that refer exclusively to Vatican II and after writings (the CCC), one leaves themselves open for not knowing what the Catholic Church has always taught for 1900+ years. Post Vatican II writers have the habit of ignoring all of antiquity and taking off into fancies, novel teachings, and ambiguous sentimentality which actually can confuse and teach the opposite of what the Church had always taught".
I invite Catholics to break themselves away from exclusively using Vatican II and post-Vatican II sources for their research about the faith, they will discover the wealth and depths of CLEAR REAL teachings of 1900+ years of the Church.
What part of satire don’t you get?
Robert Sungenis the catholic author of the article is known as a bit of a wingnut who states that Galileo got it wrong and that the sun and other planets do revolve around the earth. He has many views which have caused others to label him as an anti-semite which may not be totally fair. But he is a wingnut!
The progressivists at Vatican II succeeded in deliberately abandoning the rigor of precise language. The only council to do so in the history of Catholicism. They abandoned Scholasticism, which is nothing but the apex of a long process of perfecting theological and philosophical language, a process unleashed by the polemics between the Fathers and Catholic doctors, and the heresies and errors that sprung up during the first twelve centuries of the Christian era. Indeed, in the battles waged in favor of orthodoxy, nothing was more indispensable than a systematization of, the elaboration of a highly precise technical language placed at their service. This prevented the infiltration of ambiguous expressions that could favor the promoters of error. So great was the effort made to clearly express theological and philosophical concepts that finding precise terms and formulas that left no shadow of doubt about a controversial doctrinal point was like discovering a treasure.
Explaining the origin, nature and excellence of Scholastic doctrine, Pope Sixtus V 1588 stated:
"By the divine generosity of Him who alone imparts the spirit of wisdom and, along the ages and according to necessity, ceases not to enrich His Church with new benefits and endow her with new defenses, our forefathers, men of profound science, invented Scholastic theology. …, assiduous zeal, great works and vigils, cultivated this science, enriched it and gave it as a legacy to future generations, organized in perfect order, amply and admirably developed. Undoubtedly the knowledge and habit of such a wholesome science, which emanates from the most fecund sources of the Sacred Scriptures, the holy Fathers and the Councils, has been an invaluable help to the Church at all times, whether to facilitate a wholesome comprehension and true interpretation of the Scriptures, to read and explain the Fathers with greater assurance and usefulness, or to unmask and refute the several errors and heresies; but these latter days, which have brought us the critical times predicted by the Apostle, in which blasphemous, proud and seductive men make progress in evil, erring themselves and leading others into error, the science of which we speak is more than ever necessary to confirm the dogmas of the Catholic faith and refute heresies." (Sixtus V. Bull Triumphantis, 1588, in Leo XIII, Encyclical Aeterni Patris, August 4, 1879 (Petropolis: Vozes, 1960), n. 28.)
Thus, Scholastic Theology and Philosophy gradually built over the centuries an invulnerable wall protecting Revelation and the Magisterium from the insidious attacks of adversaries. That is why they deserved such high praise from Sixtus V, who saw in them "this tight and perfect cohesion between cause and effect, this symmetry and order resembling those of an army in battle array, these luminous definitions and distinctions, this solidity of argumentation and subtlety in controversy by means of which light is separated from darkness, truth distinguished from error and the lies of heresy, deprived of the prestige and fictions enveloping them, are unveiled and laid bare.” (Ibid n. 23)
Nevertheless, the language adopted by Vatican II discarded that tight and perfect cohesion between cause and effect, those luminous definitions and distinctions, that solidity in argumentation typical of Scholastic language. They discarded that Scholastic perfection in favor of texts that were "patched up","worked over", "incoherent", "promiscuous” , "more appropriate to a "Babel" and its "confusion of languages” (these various expressions are used by renowned theologians).
That which the Saints, Fathers, and Doctors of old feared, was thus achieved: the entrance of ambiguity into the expression of theological thinking.
Such response in no way address the subject of the discussion.
Exclusively and continually using this type of character assassination by undocumented personal impressions, is the poorest way to convert people, it is the same as the Catholic "apologist" who offer no response to Protestants teachings, just bad mouthing Calvin, Luther, and their ministers with undocumented personal insults and prejudiced historical falsehoods.
It is far better to just address the subject directly. If there is something wrong in the writings, it will come out in the wash (and besides, who knows the details of any of us "anonymous" Freepers?).
God Bless,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.