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?<>
"Just HOW MANY of the Documents do you reject? Why not just come out and tell us forthrightly?"
There you go - jumping to conclusions again. I don't reject any of the documents because most of them simply re-state traditional Catholic teaching but in a more up to date vocabulary. Some of them contain beautiful expositions of the faith which serve to deepen our love for God.
However, there are some ambiguities that admit of an illicit interpretation, and I would have a problem with these to the extent of wishing to see them clarified by the Magisterium. That is not the same as rejecting an entire document.
For instance, take the following sentence in Gaudium et spes 24:
"This likeness reveals that man, who is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself, cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself.(2)"
I have no problem with the main object of the sentence which is perfectly true and scriptural, however the parenthetical statement in the middle:
"who is the only creature on earth which GOD WILLED FOR ITSELF"
SEEMS to conflict with our notion of God as an impassible being who willed all things FOR HIMSELF, and who alone is non-contingent existence. As various prelates and theologians have taken this phrase out of context to support aspects of their teaching, I think it important that the Church should either correct it at some point, or, as it appears to be a novel doctrine, show clearly how it accords with the rest of revelation. After all isn't this what JPII urged theologians to do in Ecclesia Dei - in order to clear up ambiguities in the Council's document's?
There again I could just say that as the Council did not intend to establish anything as binding which it did not specifically put forward as such, and this phrase has not been promulgated as binding, then I am free to ignore it until such time that the Church clarifies it definitively.
"do you prefer to just attack the Council piecemeal?"
No - I just prefer not to be a conciliar fundamentalist!