Replies

"I stand with the Council and Tradition Catholicsm"

I too stand with the Council, when interpreted in the light of all previous Councils as endorsed by the current Prefect of the CDF who you quote above:

"The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council DEFINED NO DOGMA AT ALL, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a MERELY PASTORAL COUNCIL; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.

This idea is made stronger by things that are now happening. That which previously was considered most holy - the form in which the liturgy was handed down - suddenly appears as the most forbidden of all things, the one thing that can safely be prohibited. IT IS INTOLERABLE TO CRITICIZE DECISIOINS WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN SINCE THE COUNCIL; on the other hand, if men make question of ancient rules, or even of the great truths of the faith - for instance, the corporal virginity of Mary, the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the immortality of the soul, etc. - nobody complains or only does so with the greatest moderation. I myself, when I was a professor, have seen how the very same bishop who, before the council, had fired a teacher who was really irreproachable, for a certain crudeness of speech, was not prepared, after the council, to dismiss a professor who openly denied certain fundamental truths of the faith.

All this leads a great number of people to ask themselves if the Church of today is really the same as that of yesterday, or if they have changed it for something else without telling people. The one way in which Vatican II can be made PLAUSIBLE is to present it as it is; ONE PART OF THE UNBROKEN, the unique Tradition of the Church and of her faith."

Address by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, given July 13, 1988, in Santiago, Chile before that nation's bishops.

Even Uncle Jo claims that this was a MERELY PASTORAL COUNCIL. You can hardly blame Fr Blet for thinking likewise.

I too stand with the Council, when interpreted in the light of all previous Councils as endorsed by the current Prefect of the CDF who you quote above:

<> You say you stand with the Council yet you want the freedom to reject what you feel ought not be accepted. You both want to have your Conciliar Cake and to be able to eat it too. <>

"The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council DEFINED NO DOGMA AT ALL, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a MERELY PASTORAL COUNCIL; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.

<>I certainly don't treat it that way nor do I say I am free to reject it if I feel like it. The fact of the matter is that both extremes treat it as the end of Tradition.<>

This idea is made stronger by things that are now happening. That which previously was considered most holy - the form in which the liturgy was handed down - suddenly appears as the most forbidden of all things, the one thing that can safely be prohibited. IT IS INTOLERABLE TO CRITICIZE DECISIOINS WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN SINCE THE COUNCIL; on the other hand, if men make question of ancient rules, or even of the great truths of the faith - for instance, the corporal virginity of Mary, the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the immortality of the soul, etc. - nobody complains or only does so with the greatest moderation. I myself, when I was a professor, have seen how the very same bishop who, before the council, had fired a teacher who was really irreproachable, for a certain crudeness of speech, was not prepared, after the council, to dismiss a professor who openly denied certain fundamental truths of the faith. Strange words from the CDF Prefect. He can act against whomever he desires. If heretics abound, why just complain? <>

Even Uncle Jo claims that this was a MERELY PASTORAL COUNCIL. You can hardly blame Fr Blet for thinking likewise.

<> Pastoral, smashtoral. Either way, one is bound by an Ecumenical Council and Fr. Blet's opinion represents protestantism.

Both the extreme left and the extreme right approach this Ecumenical Council as a totally unique Ecumenical Council. The left reinterprets it in light of its own desires and ignores the actual Documents by apealing to "The Spirit of the Council" while the extreme right reads the actual Documents and, appealing to "tradition," says, "Hell, them things don't apply to me 'cause I don't feel they are inconsistent with my personal view of what constitutes "Tradition."

There IS a Crisis of Faith and each extreme is responsible. The left rejects an Ecumenical Council by appealing to "The Spirit" and the right rejects an Ecumenical council by appealing to "Tradition." Neither side can cite any warrant for any Catholic to reject any Ecumenical Council. Both sides follow their own wills and then they wonder why there is such confusion and a crisis of certitude, authority, unity and obedience. I guess it is only others than need be obedient. <> Referrin to Governemt intervention in the Economy, Richard Nixon famously said, "We are all Keynesians now." Maybe it is time for us to simply admit, "We are all Protestants now." Then we can start to pick which Ecuemnical Councils we will reject, in whole or in part - past, present and future- .

If we are all entitled to be theological entrepreneurs in this Economy of Salvation,, let's just say so and drop the rationalising rhetoric and pretentious posturing.<>

Even Uncle Jo claims that this was a MERELY PASTORAL COUNCIL. You can hardly blame Fr Blet for thinking likewise.

<> You know, when I hear it was "Merely Pastoral" I can almost hear, "N'yeah, N'Yeah, N'Yeah, N'Yeah, N'Yeah, we don't gotta obey ...cause it was only Pastoral"

It is as if we need be sheep ONLY when our Pastors are guiding us with Dogmatic Crosiers and, absent that, we are but Lone Traditional Wolves free to not only reject the Doctrines of an Ecumenical Council but anything else, including the normative Mass, if we don't feel like accepting it because "it was merely pastoral."

And when our protestant brethren on there threads see us acting like this, what do we tell them when they accurately say, "See, you guys are no different than us."