Posted on 10/06/2015 4:31:09 PM PDT by Legatus
Whatever one might say of the sacrilegious "Kasper proposal" (the very embodiment of what Saint Thomas Aquinas warns us not to do in the Lauda Sion - not throw the Blessed Sacrament away...), at least it has a very tenuous link to some structure one might identify as a "couple".
The Tennis Court Oath was made by the Progressive Bishops in Rome a few months ago, and the Revolution is in full swing, in the Jacobin phase -- they will not let go of their chance to strike deep, fast, strongly, and in all directions, and nothing is a coincidence.
Some of the "faith and family" issues debated on this third day?
The "ordination" of women to the Diaconate...
Polygamy - a matter to be better decided locally.
After the high hopes of the Erdo report yesterday, it has gone downhill fast - into freak-show territory.
From Vatican I, not II. The OUM is 100% Traditional Catholic teaching.
I stand corrected: the words are there. But I’m not sure that the usage suggests anything more complex than tradition and revelation. The citation here seems weak indeed. “[P]roposes for belief,” e.g., doesn’t translate to “necessary to” or “declares for” belief. It’s like finding the phrase “guarantees to pay” substituted for “will pay” in a contract—the verb dominates.
The Assumption & the Immaculate Conception for centuries were ideal examples of what ordinary & universal magisterium (not to mention the old-fashioned and simpler tradition & revelation) would cover; yet even they were eventually acclaimed ex cathedra.
But there’s another factor here, too: The Church (or the new-fangled “People of God”) is a combination of the Church Militant, the Church Suffering, and the Church Triumphant. The bishops at any particular council are likewise still only a fraction of the Church’s history & universe of bishops and must agree not only with each other and the pope but with their predecessors.
The words are very clear: "are to be believed". To believe that these other things are not necessary to believe is to suggest that one can pick and choose what to believe from our pre-Vatican II catechisms. This is all part of the OUM. AND NO subsequent teachings can contradict them.
The Assumption & the Immaculate Conception for centuries were ideal examples of what ordinary & universal magisterium (not to mention the old-fashioned and simpler tradition & revelation) would cover; yet even they were eventually acclaimed ex cathedra.
Yes, but you have to keep in mind why such proclamations are made by the Church. Usually it is because others attack it or question it or there are heresies abounding about it and the Church needs to make things very clear. Just because something is declared ex cathedra does not mean that it was never believed beforehand.
But there’s another factor here, too: The Church (or the new-fangled “People of God”) is a combination of the Church Militant, the Church Suffering, and the Church Triumphant. The bishops at any particular council are likewise still only a fraction of the Church’s history & universe of bishops and must agree not only with each other and the pope but with their predecessors.
AGREED! Yes, they should agree with their predecessors and not contradict the prior Magisterium. That is why Vatican II is a huge conundrum because there are contradictions....no matter how much the post Vatican II apologists say they do not.
“That is why Vatican II is a huge conundrum because there are contradictions....no matter how much the post Vatican II apologists say they do not.”
Yes, yes, no truer words. But that’s also why its writings and concepts require such fastidious nit-picking!
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.