John Paul II — The Face of Love

e3mil.com ^ | 8/6/02 | James Bemis

[ultima ratio]

All ecumenical counsels ARE NOT infallible by their nature. This is because the Holy Spirit only protects from error that which is intended to be declared as doctrine--and Vatican II specifically stated it did not wish anything it said to be taken dogmatically. Its purpose was pastoral. Otherwise we might ask why its insistence that Gregorian chant be retained was given such short shrift by liturgists. Tell me, what are the Vatican II dogmas you think we are bound to assent to?

[ultima ratio]

And you can have your quasi-Protestant one.

[Catholicguy]

Ecumenical Councils. Read it and weep, Ace

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

[Catholicguy]

Lefebvre signed. Read it and weep, Ace.

http://www.petersnet.net/browse/857.htm

[Loyalist]

ultima: Can you at least accept that, for all the grief that has come in its wake, Vatican II is a legitimate Ecumenical Council? That not all of the fruits of the Council have been bitter?

Catholicguy: Can you at least accept that papal infallibility, as it has been defined dogmatically by Vatican I and upheld by Vatican II, does not extend to all papal decisions? That not all of the fruits of the Council have been sweet?

[drstevej]

Interesting article. I was surprised that it did not list Vatican II. Then I noticed the article was written in 1908.

One question: Are we Protestants heretics or errant brethren? I'll be printing business cards soon and need to know the right title.
:-)

[Catholicguy]

Would you look at the size of that broom she sits on? It looks like it is souped-up and maybe has anti-radar devices and whatnot.

See what ya miss in your recondite Communion? :)

[Catholicguy]

always mining Church documents for incriminating quotes

Inspired metaphor. They definitely are in the dark...

[drstevej]

Dang, CG... "recondite"? Catholic crossword puzzles must be tough. I'm still trying to figure out indult. I am whelmed (and almost overwhelmed).

[ultima ratio]

I think the counsel was legitimate, but unwise. Fr. Paul Wilson summed up our situation well: "The clergy sexual abuse problem is not the only cross we bear. We don't have ONE crisis, we have at least TWELVE of the damned things--and we have had them for FORTY YEARS, and no one seems to be doing a blessed thing about them. Our Liturgy is a risible shambles in most places; our catechesis is woefully inadequate; religious life, seminary formation, family life, moral theology, scriptural studies--crisis after crisis after crisis. Why is it that over the years the persistent cry of the Faithful has gone unheeded?"

Good question. Vatican II talked a lot about lay involvment--but putting a few females up on the altar as eucharistic ministers was about it in most places. The laity have resisted the radical innovations that have foisted upon them against their wills, and they have complained for decades to Rome about malfeasance and corruption--and have been greeted with silence. This is why I blame this Pope. He is a good man in many ways, but he has not cleaned house and he has not been as attentive to his flock as he might have been. He has instead appointed an unusual number of very bad prelates. Not one has been known for sanctity or wisdom in this country. Most are incredibly mediocre, some are outright scoundrels.

[Catholicguy]

Catholicguy: Can you at least accept that papal infallibility, as it has been defined dogmatically by Vatican I and upheld by Vatican II, does not extend to all papal decisions? That not all of the fruits of the Council have been sweet?

I agree that many things have been sour, bitter and rotten. The whole question of Infallibility is misunderstood by most Catholics and I am one of those like the Ward (Englishman, I forget his name) gentleman who desired to begin every day with a new Papal Bull on his desk :). Maybe a whole thread devoted to Infallibility would be an excellent idea. Not that it would be controversial or anything.

[ultima ratio]

Read it and weep? I'm laughing my arse off. Tell me the point you're trying to make. Have you found the good Archbishop's signature on every single document?

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

Your point was that the Church only cracks down on dissident "traditionalists" and not dissident "liberals". The excommunications of these seven women, in a matter of days from their offense, belies your argument.

In both cases, people defied the pope. In both cases, people were excommunicated.

In your eyes, these silly women did a bad thing, and Archbishop Lefebvre did a good thing. But that is only your point of view.

In some ways, what Archbishop Lefebvre did was worse.

The silly play-bishop (the gentleman who performed the "ordinations", from what I have read, is not a real Catholic bishop, obedient, disobedient, or otherwise) who performed the silly play-ordinations was not abusing a sacred trust (the power to ordain) because he had no sacred trust to abuse. These folks were guily of nothing more than bad play-acting.

Archbishop Lefebvre, on the other hand, took the sacred trust given to him (the ability to consecrate bishops), and defied the Vicar of Christ in abusing that authority, your arguments that he was preserving the Catholic tradition notwithstanding. Remember that no matter how much the late archbishop may or may not have believed that he was justified to do what he did, the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church did not share that opinion. And it is the view of the Supreme Pontiff that will determine whether or not one's act of disobedience results in excommunication.

To reiterate, the Church acted swiftly and harshly against these anti-Catholic dissidents of the left, just as she has against anti-Catholic dissidents of the right.

sitetest

[drstevej]

***To reiterate, the Church acted swiftly and harshly against these anti-Catholic dissidents of the left, just as she has against anti-Catholic dissidents of the right.***

Help me understand why the RCC tolerates the hiring a witch/Wiccan/pagan at one of it's universities to help teach religion.