Bishop Barron’s “Vatican II FAQs”
Posted on 09/21/2020 8:27:49 AM PDT by ebb tide
Ping
...”If the project of modernization has resulted in a massive loss of Catholic identity, even of basic doctrinal competence and morals, the way forward is to pay one’s last respects to the great symbol of that project and see it buried.”
Back up. Note the illegitimacy of the “popes” who opened, oversaw and promulgate the Vatican II council. That is the only way forward, as it is the only way that admits to the doctrine that a pope cannot teach harm to the Church.
There are Catholics, including bishops and priests, who are fruitfully walking this viable path.
I’m not convinced that the sentences he cites could not be interpreted as consistent with Tradition. They do not only admit of the heretical interpretation s he advances. And since the conciliator documents are magisterial, one has a duty to try and interpret them as such.
There is no such doctrine!
Are you serious? It's been 55 years now and it still hasn't been done.
Does this include rejecting the Novus Ordo, or the vernacular mass?
There are still people who believe that the Vicar of Christ can promulgate harm and error to the Universal Church. If that is possible, then what’s the point in having a pope in the first place?
The only absolute guarantee that you have is that the Pope will not teach error as dogma. There is no guarantee that the Pope will not "promulgate harm," whatever that may mean to you.
If a Pope exercises some administrative function that is licitly his, and (in your opinion, which may be entirely valid) he errs in doing so, is that "promulgating harm"? Let's suppose, for example, that he appoints a material heretic as Prefect of the CDF. Is that "promulgating harm"? Does that cause the Pope to cease being the Pope?
#can-o-worms
I thought it was pretty clear that I was referring to teaching heresies to the Universal Church (as in a general council promulgated and approved by said pope).
Also, the Council of Trent did not need years of "interpretation" in the "hermeneutic of continuity".
Try reading the article.
Bishop Barron’s “Vatican II FAQs”
+++” And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. ”+++
Kryptonite for some, Ebb.......
All who defend the faith should aim to implant deeply in your faithful people the virtues of piety, veneration, and respect for this supreme See of Peter. Let the faithful recall the fact that Peter, Prince of Apostles is alive here and rules in his successors, and that his office does not fail even in an unworthy heir. Let them recall that Christ the Lord placed the impregnable foundation of his Church on this See of Peter [Mt 16:18] and gave to Peter himself the keys of the kingdom of Heaven [Mt 16:19]. Christ then prayed that his faith would not fail, and commanded Peter to strengthen his brothers in the faith [Lk 22:32]. Consequently the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, holds a primacy over the whole world and is the true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christians.
Indeed one simple way to keep men professing Catholic truth is to maintain their communion with and obedience to the Roman Pontiff. For it is impossible for a man ever to reject any portion of the Catholic faith without abandoning the authority of the Roman Church. In this authority, the unalterable teaching office of this faith lives on. It was set up by the divine Redeemer and, consequently, the tradition from the Apostles has always been preserved. So it has been a common characteristic both of the ancient heretics and of the more recent Protestants — whose disunity in all their other tenets is so great — to attack the authority of the Apostolic See. But never at any time were they able by any artifice or exertion to make this See tolerate even a single one of their errors.
(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum, nn. 16-17)
Quote found at https://novusordowatch.org/2020/07/on-disobeying-the-pope/
Thus if one questions Vatican II council then he must first reject the doctrine contained in Pope Pius IX’s above named encyclicle.
See post #16 above.
Thanks ET. VIGANO gets another base hit. He is like a really good neuro surgeon, carefully cutting away the surrounding tissue to reveal the cancer.
The persistent call to obey a revolution citing previous teachings on the importance of the virtue of obedience in avoiding faction is very tiresome.
How can anyone bring somebody into the One, True Church when he spouts such heresy as, "“No. The Catholic view—go back to the Second Vatican Council [which] says it very clearly. I mean, Christ is the privileged route to salvation."
Saved by “Conscience”? The Gospel According to Barron
Bp. Robert Barron’s Spiritual Poison
A clear and present danger to souls
Don't drink any more poison, Murph. Barron is a danger to your soul.
As an example of an erroneous statement, he quotes Lumen Gentium 16 which claims that salvation includes "those who acknowledge the Creator” like the Muslims who along with us “adore the one and merciful God.”
Viganò explains that the god of Mohammed is not one and triune and that Islam condemns Christ's Incarnation. From this, he concludes that certain Vatican II statements are heterodox and cannot be a part of the Magisterium which cannot contain errors.
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.