Posted on 01/23/2023 10:34:10 AM PST by ebb tide
“A certain number of important theological questions about which no agreement could be reached were left open by choosing formulations that could be interpreted differently by particular groups and theological tendencies at the Council.” (Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler, as quoted in Fr. Matthias Gaudron’s The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church)
Those who have sought to destroy the Church for the past several decades have routinely used Vatican II and its “Spirit” to justify their anti-Catholic initiatives. All Traditional Catholics oppose these attacks on the Church, but we are generally handicapped in combatting them because we disagree on how to respond to the Council. As a result, rather than banding together to fight the errors animated by the Spirit of Vatican II, we sometimes fight each other about how much we can, or should, oppose the Council. This, of course, assists our common enemies in their unholy warfare.
The goal of this approach is not to preserve, defend, or promote the Council; rather the goal is to neuter the progressivist weaponization of the Council until such time as a holy pope can adequately resolve the questions about Vatican II.
Even if Traditional Catholics disagree on certain key aspects of the Council’s authority, we ought to agree that the progressive architects of Vatican II have intentionally weaponized the Council against Catholicism through the exploitation of the ambiguities described by Rahner (above), and confirmed by Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx:
“We have used ambiguous phrases during the Council and we know how we will interpret them afterwards.” (Schillebeeckx, as quoted in Archbishop Lefebvre’s Open Letter to Confused Catholics)
If ever we have another genuinely Catholic pope, he will need to guide the Church in resolving the questions surrounding the authority and meaning of the Council and its tragically flawed documents. For the time being, though, the same ambiguities in the Council that have allowed progressives to promote their anti-Catholic initiatives invite, and even require, faithful Catholics to insist on genuinely Catholic interpretations of the Council. Although certain critical passages of the Conciliar documents sound like impious nonsense, we know that insofar as Rome claims the Council is Catholic, the passages must be given a Catholic meaning. Obviously a Catholic Council must be Catholic.
At various stages, Rome has allowed for the theoretical possibility of “interpreting” the Council “in the light of tradition,” and even Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre endorsed such an approach in his March 8, 1980 letter to John Paul II:
“I am fully in agreement with the judgment that Your Holiness gave on the Second Vatican Council, on 6 November 1978, at a meeting of the Sacred College: ‘that the Council must be understood in the light of the whole of holy Tradition, and on the basis of the unvarying Magisterium of Holy Mother Church.’”
This general approach allows for various outcomes, many of which could result in an unholy mixture of truth and error. Given the fact that those drafting the Council documents intentionally included ambiguous passages that they intended to interpret in a heterodox manner, we have a right to condition our “acceptance” of the Council on it being interpreted in a way that is entirely consistent with the “unvarying Magisterium of Holy Mother Church.” Such interpretations must completely reject all error and clearly state immutable Catholic truth. This approach would not automatically rid the Church of its high-ranking enemies, but it could diminish their ability to persuade Catholics that Vatican II gives them carte blanche to destroy the Church.
As distasteful as it is for those who despise the Council, now is the time to insist that the “proper interpretation” of the Conciliar documents must be completely in keeping with Church teaching.
This differs from the “hermeneutic of continuity” approach advanced by Benedict XVI because the progressive, anti-Catholic interpretations must be rejected entirely rather than accommodated. There is complete discontinuity between Catholicism and what the progressives have accomplished through their interpretation of Vatican II. Unless and until a holy pope formally resolves the Vatican II crisis, the discontinuity must be rectified by rejecting the non-Catholic interpretations and insisting on the Traditional Catholic interpretations. The goal of this approach is not to preserve, defend, or promote the Council; rather the goal is to neuter the progressivist weaponization of the Council until such time as a holy pope can adequately resolve the questions about Vatican II.
To illustrate the practical application of this approach to the Council, we can look at a few common points of contention:
"This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth.’ This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure."
Rather than debating the meaning of this idea that the “Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church,” we should simply insist that this must mean that the “Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.”
“It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.”
Rather than debating the meaning of the idea that “the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using separated churches as means of salvation,” we should simply insist that God does not will false religions and does not use them as a “means of salvation,” even if He may, in His infinite mercy and wisdom, allow individuals in such false religions to save their souls in spite of their false religion.
“All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery.”
Rather than debating the meaning of these ideas, we should simply insist that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church absent the extraordinary interventions from God that the Church has historically acknowledged.
We can apply this same methodology to every contentious passage in the Conciliar documents. It requires little creativity and no compromise — we merely identify the subject matter involved, insist on the applicable Catholic truth, and reject the corresponding error. Indeed, the Society of St. Pius X’s “Si Si No No” published a similar methodology in 2003-2004, cataloging and describing the various “Errors of Vatican II” and providing the opposing Catholic truths.
What is the purpose of such an approach? Today we see Francis and his collaborators attempting to transform the Catholic Church into the chaplaincy for the Great Reset and New World Order. These anti-Catholic innovators rely almost exclusively on Vatican II for their unholy efforts.
Unfortunately, though, the progressives have enjoyed the almost exclusive role in interpreting their ambiguous passages, which has allowed them to force us into one of two camps: either we accept Vatican II and implicitly endorse the errors they try to promote; or we reject Vatican II and they marginalize us as “schismatics.” But by making the documents intentionally ambiguous to gain the approval of the Council Fathers, they left open the theoretical possibility that faithful Catholics would eventually “accept Vatican II” and reject their anti-Catholic interpretations of it. As distasteful as it is for those who despise the Council, now is the time to insist that the “proper interpretation” of the Conciliar documents must be completely in keeping with Church teaching.
In conjunction with this insistence on the “proper interpretation” of the Council, faithful Catholics should unambiguously reject the errors which have been foisted on the Church through the progressive interpretations of the Conciliar documents. The formula for such rejections is simple: in each case, Catholics can state the immutable Catholic truth and condemn the opposing error. Even those who must, for whatever reason, “support” Vatican II can and should insist on Catholic truth and reject the errors plaguing the Church today.
This approach also accords with the words of Pius VI’s 1794 bull, Auctorem Fidei, condemning the Gallican and Jansenist acts and tendencies of the Synod of Pistoia:
“Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements which disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged.”
The progressives intentionally veiled their errors with ambiguity to gain sufficient approval from the unsuspecting Council Fathers. We, who now know how the progressives have used these ambiguous passages, have a duty to denounce the errors and firmly assert the Catholic truth. The Council Fathers never would have agreed to the overtly anti-Catholic interpretations, and we should not hesitate to denounce them today. In fact, we have a moral obligation to do so.
Would the liberal Catholics object? Of course, but in so doing they must openly acknowledge that the Council breaks with all of Catholic tradition. This approach would thus compel them to choose between (a) accepting the Catholic truth which they despise, or (b) undermining their argument that their interpretations of the Council are consistent with Church teaching.
This is why they insist that we “accept Vatican II.” If we can effectively take Vatican II away from these heretics by rejecting the anti-Catholic interpretations, we can impede their ability to hijack the Catholic Church to advance their demonic aims.
What is the purpose of such an approach? Today we see Francis and his collaborators attempting to transform the Catholic Church into the chaplaincy for the Great Reset and New World Order. These anti-Catholic innovators rely almost exclusively on Vatican II for their unholy efforts. This is why they insist that we “accept Vatican II.” If we can effectively take Vatican II away from these heretics by rejecting the anti-Catholic interpretations, we can impede their ability to hijack the Catholic Church to advance their demonic aims.
Without God’s grace, we can do nothing. But this complete dependence on God does not mean that He wants us to passively accept the demonic outrages committed against Him and His Church. We have to fight, and today it appears that the unholy interpretation of Vatican II is both the most important weapon our enemies have and the one that is most vulnerable to our counterattacks. Perhaps a holy pope will one day completely reject Vatican II, but until that happens we should do all we can to render it worthless to our enemies. Our Lady, Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, pray for us!
Too late. Those who wanted to smash the Church to pieces, including our “pope,” have been wildly successful.
Catholics,who are badly formed and dumb these days, just watched, or helped.
We deserve this.
Two words solve the problem of which "documents" are correct:
sola scriptura
sola Christus
sola fide
sola gratia
soli Deo gloria
One thing you and I can probably agree on is it'd be better for the RCC to be run by someone from the Augustinian order than the Jesuit order.
Where do you find the Table of Contents establishing the canon, in Scripture?
“We have used ambiguous phrases during the Council and we know how we will interpret them afterwards.” (Schillebeeckx, as quoted in Archbishop Lefebvre’s Open Letter to Confused Catholics)
This theme is well presented in "Anti-Apostle 1025", which alleges to present a manuscript from one of the Vatican II scribes, planted into the clergy by the communists.
50% of the Augustinians have been English, but 100% of the English have been Augustinians.
100% of the Jesuits have been Argentinian.
That reminds me of a song.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI-9ARxExzc
And as an English Saint Canonized by the Argentine Pope said
“To the Pope if you must, but to Conscience first, amd the Pope afterwards.
Who decided what the canon of Scripture should be and on what basis?
Even before the First Council of Nicaea formally canonized the New Testament, the common belief about which writings were holy scripture was to include things written by eyewitnesses of resurrected Jesus and their close associates. That hasn't changed.
It's amazing that Nicaea (early AD 4th century) was over a century before the first real pope (Leo in mid 5th century) consolidated all the western church's political power under see of Rome (himself) and 7 centuries before pope Gregory defined what we today call "papal authority". Basically, in many ways the church at the time of Nicaea (era of Bible canonization) fell in line with more of what we today call Protestants than what we today call Catholicism. Even the Latin word "catholic" meant universal or encompassing the world (all of God's Christians all over the world), not like Catholics use it today (meaning a subset of Christians).
Now that you've demonstrated complete ignorance of church history as well as Scripture.
Matt 16:17-19, Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.
St. Cyprian
In the middle of the third century St. Cyprian expressly terms the Roman See the Chair of St. Peter, saying that Cornelius has succeeded to "the place of Fabian which is the place of Peter " (Ep 55:8; cf. 59:14).
St. Clement The first witness is St. Clement, a disciple of the Apostles, who, after Linus and Anacletus, succeeded St. Peter as the fourth in the list of popes. In his "Epistle to the Corinthians", written in 95 or 96, he bids them receive back the bishops whom a turbulent faction among them had expelled. "If any man ", he says, "should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger" (Ep. 59).
So let's look at what Scripture says about the Rock.
As you quoted (bold-faced mine): "Matt 16:17-19, Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.
Assuming you quoted that in part to say that Jesus renamed Simon as "Peter" which means "rock" and then Jesus said He'll build the church on the "rock". Are those really the same words? "Peter" in the Greek is "Petros" while "rock" in the Greek is "petra". The first means small stone or rock. The second means large stone, often used in that day to refer to a large rock foundation a village was built on. I suggest you be open to the possibility that these two different words (as recorded in the Greek by Matthew) might have different meanings. It may be that the "rock" Jesus builds the church on isn't the "rock" of Peter. It may be that Jesus named Simon "Little Rock" (peteros) to honor Peter's belief that Jesus is the "Big Rock" (petra) "Messiah, the Son of the Living God" (as Peter stated in the verse 16 immediately prior to the verses you posted).
Don't believe me? Don't take my word for it. Take the Bible's. In the entire rest of the New Testament, Peter is never again referred to as the rock of the church, but Jesus is.
1 Corinthians 10:4 -- and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
Acts 4:11 -- Jesus is "the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone."
Ephesians 2:20 -- built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
Last but not least on the rock vs. stone / Peteros vs Peter argument, I'll give you this quote written by whom you assert to be the first pope (bold-faced mine):
1st Peter 2:4-8 -- As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house[a] to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” 7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, “The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” 8 and, “A stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.”
Look at the above passage from Peter for a minute and count the number of times words like "rock" and "stone" are used. Verse 5 is the only verse that has other people besides Jesus referred to as "rock" or "stone", but it's not Peter talking about himself. Peter is talking about other believers in Christ.
So if we are to assume that Jesus' use of the word "rock" in Matthew 16 to declare Peter as the first pope, does that mean Pope Peter's scripture reference to us believers as "stones" (1st Peter 2:5) mean that we're all popes too?
But that's assuming you quoted Matthew 16 to refer to "rock" words as saying Peter is the first pope. Let's look at the rest of that Matthew 16 quote to see if you're talking about Jesus giving Peter the keys to the kingdom or Jesus telling Peter that he gets to dictate what all the rules are. Here's the Bible text you posted (but I'm focusing on verse 19 now, and I'll explain later why this time I went with the King James Version):
Matt 16:19 -- And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Here's my take:
1. For starters I've already disproved (at least in my opinion) the belief that the "rock" Jesus is referring to is Peter himself, or perhaps better stated Jesus wasn't saying this is about only Peter. It's about ones who believe in the Rock of Jesus. Therefore, the "you" in verse 19 is for all of us who believe in the Rock, not just Peter.
2. Have you noticed that none of the other gospels have this passage? Surely if Jesus was establishing the Papacy here then at least one of the other gospel writers would have included it too. Especially being as Matthew is one of the 3 synoptic gospels. Of all the things that the synoptic gospels repeat of each other, I find it fascinating that the supposedly important creation of the papacy is in only one gospel. That alone suggests interpreting it that way is probably in error.
3. About the part "give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven". I've heard some Catholics say this means the pope (and his clergy) have the authority to define who gets into heaven. Hogwash. Only Jesus does that. But if you don't believe me, look at the context. That phrase immediately precedes the bind and loose part. Obviously the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" is talking about the keys to binding and loosening of heaven. So anyone is taking that phrase out of context if they're saying it's about giving a man (Peter, popes, their clergy) the authority to decide who's in or out of Heaven.
4. Surely Jesus isn't telling us that all of Heaven will change their rules on what's right and wrong whenever any one of us define what is right or wrong. Is that how you see Jesus giving authority to Peter. Really? Do you really believe that Peter (and popes) have that kind of authority over changing rules already defined by God? If you're having trouble seeing the fallacy in that (perhaps you've been in the RCC so long it's become normal to think the pope has that kind of authority), let's look at the verse again. Only this time I'm going to remove the words that were added to make it grammatically correct in English. The reason I quoted the King James version of it is because years ago the Strong's Concordance did a bang up job of identifying word by word what the English word's related Greek word is basing first on the Greek text. So in the post below of verse 19 I'll strikethrough the English words added later and leave only the English words that are specifically in the Greek text:
Matt 16:19 -- And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
This tells us not to make too much of the words "shall bind" vs. "shalt be bound" (King James version, same for loose). The version you posted has it like "bind" vs. "shall be bound" and "loose" vs. "shall be loosed". My point is if you remove the added English grammar words, there is no difference in the Greek words of Peter's binding and Heaven's binding (or Peter's loosening vs Heaven's loosening). We assume a lot if we assume that Peter's binding comes before Heaven's binding. Stated differently, we assume a lot to believe Peter's binding is the cause and Heaven's binding is the effect. It may very well be that the best way to translate it is: "whatever you bind ought to be what's already bound in Heaven and whatever you loose ought to be what's already loosened in Heaven".
5. Finally, are the binding and loosening really about the teachings of right and wrong (what's sin and not sin)? Does the text actually say that? It may be, and this is just a possibility, that the binding and loosening referring to unleashing God's miraculous power through His believers. Look at the context immediately before (verse 16) and after (verse 20) the passage you originally quoted (verses 17-19) that I too have posted. (bold-faced mine)
Matthew 16:16 -- Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Matthew 16:20 -- Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.”
The Greek word for "Messiah" here is "christos" which of course we often say as "Christ". This technically means "anointed". Verse 16 has Peter referring to Jesus as both the "Messiah" and as "the Son of the Living God". But in verse 20 Matthew restates Jesus' title only as "Messiah", not the "Son of the Living God" part. Obviously, in this context Jesus' title as "Messiah" (anointed) is the issue, not that He's the Son of God (although that's very important in other contexts).
So stop and think about that for a minute. This is in Matthew, not the other gospels. And as we know, Matthew's main target audience are fellow Jews. So pretend you're an average Joe Jew living 2,000 years ago reading the Gospel of Matthew, educated in reading Greek (as Matthew wrote it). When you read verse 19's binding and loosening in the context of Jesus being the Anointed One from the surrounding verses 16 and 20, would you assume that what's being bound and loosened are teachings of what's right and wrong? I don't think so. In the Old Testament God's anointing of someone was almost always in the context of doing things for God's kingdom (as in Samuel anointing David). It's not like a newly anointed person had the authority to re-write the old law of Moses. But anointed people were given miraculous power to slay giants, win wars, move kingdoms, call down fire, etc. Combine that with verse 17's language of the gates of Hell not being able to stand against Jesus' church. IMHO we assume a lot when we assume verse 19's binding and loosening is about making new rules of right and wrong (what a lot of Catholics believe as the papal authority). Verse 19 is Jesus telling us that God is itching to move in the kind of miraculous power that even Hell can't stop and the only thing holding Him back is us believers.
and then you throw in this "I've heard some Catholics say..." nonsense, which is nowhere in Church doctrine.
The word for Peter and for rock in the original Aramaic is one and the same; this renders it evident that the various attempts to explain the term "rock" as having reference not to Peter himself but to something else are misinterpretations. It is Peter who is the rock of the Church. The term ecclesia here employed is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew qahal, the name which denoted the Hebrew nation viewed as God's Church. "And upon this rock I will build my Church. . ." Here then Christ teaches plainly that in the future the Church will be the society of those who acknowledge Him, and that this Church will be built on Peter.
You mean the Scriptures which the Church wrote down, after deciding which were authentic and which were not? Those Scriptures?
Maybe you should see my post # 11 https://freerepublic.com/focus/religion/4125442/posts?page=11#11. It's not like you're the first to make that argument. LOL
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.