Replies

"What you cite is a protestant principle and it inverts right reason and reality and there is nothing traditional or customary about it."

Sorry CG, but I just wanted to illustrate the fact that sometimes you can be too quick to shoot off and start slinging charges of schism and heresy around, when in fact there are many areas about which it is quite legitimate to debate until matters are settled definitively.

The "protestant principle" that you are having problems with is actually based on a citation from the documents of Vatican II themselves:

"Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it has expressly put forward as such." Appendix to Lumen Gentium.

As the Council did not in fact "expressly put forward" anything as binding on the Church, it is reasonable to assume that only its teachings which are declared binding in previous acts of the Magisterium (i.e. pre-conciliar dogma and definitions) are to be taken as such. Perhaps this is the point that Fr. Blet was trying to make?

Indeed the Council had other things to say about the limits of the Pope's and Church's infallibility and how far this extends:

"And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded....

Furthermore when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its ENTIRETY through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself,...

..but a new public revelation THEY DO NOT ACCEPT as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith." Lumen Gentium 25

Thus the Vatican II Council Fathers were equally concerned with setting the limits of infallibility (both for Pope and Council) as were the Vatican I Fathers in Pastor Aeternus.

This also shows in Dei Verbum which apparently gives goldhammer some difficulties (very unCatholic, tut tut!):

"The Christian economy, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away and we now await NO FURTHER new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ (see 1 Tim. 6:14 and Tit. 2:13)." DV 4

DV7. "In His gracious goodness, God has seen to it that what He had revealed for the salvation of all nations would abide perpetually in its full INTEGRITY and be handed on to all generations." N.B. the Council sees God as an Integrist!! :O)

DV 10 "This Magisterium is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on."

DV 10 "It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others."

Consequently when the Vatican II Fathers enunciate a new teaching in Gaudium et Spes such as:

"Believers and unbelievers agree almost unanimously that all things on earth should be ordained to man as to their centre and summit." GS 12

which seems to contradict the will of God revealed in scripture that all things on earth should be ordained to Christ:

Eph 1:9 "That he might make known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure, which he hath purposed in him,
10 In the dispensation of the fulness of times, to re-establish all things in Christ, that are in heaven and on earth, in him."

then we can hardly be obliged to consider the new teaching as binding - particularly as the Council itself makes no claim that this teaching is to be considered binding!

CatholicGuy,

LOL! You been snookered and good! TantumErgo really illustrated how dangerous knee jerk reactions can be. This is hilarious...he took a quote from the documents of Vat II and asked you which Traditionalist said it, you called it "protestant," but it was right outta VII!

The "protestant principle" that you are having problems with is actually based on a citation from the documents of Vatican II themselves:

"Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it has expressly put forward as such." Appendix to Lumen Gentium.

Time to re-think the knee-jerk path, CG.

Sorry CG, but I just wanted to illustrate the fact that sometimes you can be too quick to shoot off and start slinging charges of schism and heresy around, when in fact there are many areas about which it is quite legitimate to debate until matters are settled definitively.

<> No need to apologise. I am still correct. This priest WAS positing a protestant principle and this quote does not suport his posiiton. Reread what the priest said. His principle DOES give the individual authority and this Ecumenical Council, like all the others, does not teach that.<>

The "protestant principle" that you are having problems with is actually based on a citation from the documents of Vatican II themselves:

<> Yeah,so? That has nothing to do with what the priest was speaking about. He makes the individual the one with authority over a Council.

I will stand aside and watch you try to use this "key" to try to release yourself from the "prison" of an Ecumenical Council you don't fully accept. I just hope Polycarp doesn't follow you "outside." <>

Father Blet noted that members of the Society had been very warmly received during the Holy Year,

<> What did he expect, that the Pope would send out the Swiss Guards to kick their sorry schismatic asses? <>

but that things have slowed down a little since then due principally to the question of accepting Vatican II. He added that "this was not an impediment given that the Council had not promulgated any binding dogmatic definition. Everyone therefore has the right to examine what he feels able to accept..."

<> Read it and vomit.. That IS pure protestantism and it positis a protestant principle; Individual Judgement and Individual Authority. .."what he feels able to accept..."give me a damn break.

Tantum, I can't believe you are going to try to use a quote lifted from an Ecumenical Council to try and defend this indefensible principle and to try and defend your rejection of parts of this Ecuemnical Council. Just HOW MANY of the Documents do you reject? Why not just come out and tell us forthrightly?

. "I don't feel (what about THINKING?) like D.H. is the correct Catholic Teaching so I am free to not accept (REJECT) it." That is what you are defending Tantum and in trying to "illustrate..( I am).. too quick to shoot off and start slinging charges of heresy...you have wounded yourself and weakened your position in opposing an Ecumenical Council by revealing you approach it with a protestant mindset.

Will you tell us which Documents, in whole or in part, of this Ecumenical Council you do reject, or do you prefer to just attack the Council piecemeal?<>