John Paul II — The Face of Love

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

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

"That's the big difference between traditionalists and conservatives. You ignore Vatican I as well as Trent; you exalt Vatican II and the popes who support it."

No, I ignore nothing. I especially do not ignore that it is given to Peter to guard the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of Faith, and that we are guaranteed that in the exercise of the Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church, Peter will not lead the faithful astray.

I believe that it is you who ignore that you do not have the teaching office, and neither does any archbishop outside his communion with Peter.

sitetest

[drstevej]

I did read it. Glad we agree witches aren't appropriate religion teachers. Hope your church hands her the broom. My guess is she'll have tenure first!

[drstevej]

Infallibility of Popes and Councils is an important issue. Has been since the Reformation and before.

I have learned by listening to the discussion/standoff. We Protestants argue about hymns versus choruses. Now that's a weighty matter! Sigh.

[ultima ratio]

What you cite is from the Constitution on the make-up of the Church and simply describes the fuctions of the bishops and others who constitute the Church. But these passages themselves ARE NOT BINDING--unless they had been explicitly made so in previous Councils or ex cathedra papal pronouncements--since they were not expressly put forth as such, as the Explanatory Note makes clear. Nice try.

[ultima ratio]

fuctions=functions

[ultima ratio]

Did you know the SSPX has chapels in Africa, in Japan, in S.korea, in the Philipines, in Ireland, in Britain, in Italy, in France, in Poland, in Czechoslovakia, in Portugal, etc., etc.--they are all over the world, truly Catholic, by the way. The young priests are heroic, travelling long miles to get to distant chapels. I travel an hour with my family to get to church on Sunday.

[ultima ratio]

It is given to Peter to guard the revelation transmitted. But we are NOT guaranteed Peter won't screw up. He can decide to go hawking or wenching instead--or go off on a phenomenologist's tangent. That's the whole point of the Vatican I quote I gave. St. Peter did, as a matter of fact, make a big mistake--and St. Paul had to set him straight.

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

"Announcement made by the Secretary General of the Council, regarding the Vatican II documents and affirmed by the Council fathers: 'Taking into account the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present council, the sacred synod defined as binding on the Church only those matters of faith and morals which it has expressly put forth as such.'"

(Vatican Council II, 1988 Revised Edition, "The Explanatory Note", p. 423.)

LOL. You're going to put the words of an explanatory note up against the words of the Supreme Pontiff?

Is this alleged communication from the alleged Secretary General of the Council part of the papally-approved documents of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, itself? Did the bishops vote on this "document", and then did it receive the seal of the Fisherman, himself? No?

Yet, you give this "explanatory note" infallibility in interpretation over the entire Council??

The pope's not infallible, an Ecumenical Council's not infallible, but the "explanatory note" by a single archbishop is infallible??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

But, heck, just for kicks, ultima, let's look at this "infallible" pronouncement of the good archbishop, if he indeed did say it, or, if indeed that is the context, given your penchant for presenting the words of others in ways which mean directly the opposite of how they intended them.

The critical words are:

"defined as binding... only those matters... which it has expressly put forth as such."

And in his proclamation of the closing of the Council, Pope Paul VI says, "We decide moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by the faithful..."

That's "is to be religiously observed", not "may be observed", not "is suggested to be observed", not "it would be a good idea to observe", but rather "IS TO BE observed".

Sounds binding to me.

Well, I gotta give you credit for trying.

sitetest

[ultima ratio]

Regarding numbers of Catholics. Those are on paper. Practicing Catholics are much much fewer--and many of them are traditionalists who would attend a traditional Mass if one were offered conveniently. Anyhow, for one fraternity to have 500 priests in just twenty years is damn good. All of them young and well-trained--none a source of scandal.

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

Yes, I know that there are SSPX in a number of countries.

The organization has approximately 370 priests world-wide, or at least, that is what is reported at the organization's headquarters website. Imagine that! Three hundred seventy priests world-wide! In only 30+ years! Why, in another 30+ years, they'll be as big as a medium-sized religious order in the real Catholic Church!

"The young priests are heroic, travelling long miles to get to distant chapels. I travel an hour with my family to get to church on Sunday."

Yes, well, in the real Catholic Church, when we see this sort of thing, we are saddened because of the lack of vocations, and we wonder what poor spiritual administration the local bishop has committed that things have come to such a sorry state.

You know, "By their fruits you shall know them."

sitetest

PS: I'd love to continue our little dialogue, but in a little while, I'll be leaving to hang out with faithful Catholics - it's Knights of Columbus night. So, at some point, I will disappear from this otherwise edifying conversation.

[ultima ratio]

You fail to understand its import. The note is from Paul VI, guiding the rest of us as to how to take the words of the Council. In fact, that's one of the problems with Vatican II. The statement was supposed to be a Preliminary Note and the Council fathers placed it after Lumen Gentium. They will be arguing over the legality of this for centuries.

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

"It is given to Peter to guard the revelation transmitted. But we are NOT guaranteed Peter won't screw up."

We are guaranteed that Ecumenical Councils will not teach what is not true.

By the way, St. Peter's mistake was not a mistake of teaching. In fact, it is the first pope who actually promulgated the teaching concerning the gentiles, after his vision. It was his actions, which showed him not living up to his own teaching, that St. Paul rebuked.

At the Council of Jerusalem, it is St. Peter who reaffirms the teaching, against the initial judgement of the "judaizers", who were led by none other than the bishop of Jerusalem, St. James.

Thus, St. Peter's teaching was infallible, though he himself was not impeccable. St. Paul's rebuke reminded him to teach what he had already infallibly proclaimed, and to stand up to St. James. And, we see in the first Church Council, that once Peter stood up and pronounced, even those who initially disagreed with him, in this case St. James and his party, submitted to the authority of Peter.

Sounds like an infallible Church Council to me.

sitetest

[ultima ratio]

Your figures are not up to date--the site probably isn't. I got mine off the letter just published by Bishop Fellay and distributed a few Sundays ago. In any case it is about a quarter of the whole movement, which includes many many independent priests and Indult priests, etc. But they are important out of proportion to their numbers because as long as they exist people will have the old faith--before the conciliar wrecking-ball started swinging.

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

I found your quote. It appears once again to have been taken out of context. I don't have time to get to it now. I'll try to get to it later, as much for the sake of others who might be misled by your words as for you.

In charity,

sitetest

[JMJ333]

Quit trying to lure me to this thread! It gives me a headache! =)

[JMJ333]

You've been here less than a month, have never posted on the news forum, and only show up to bash the Pope or argue schismatic positions. And you had no problem with jumping right into the debating waters the. Almost like you're an old pro at it. Tsk Tsk...agendas agendas.

[sinkspur]

Since you seem to really want my opinion, I'll give it to you: If your not a Catholic in the state of grace when you die, your gonna burn.

This is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor has it ever been.

[Land of the Irish]

Can I still go to Heaven?

According to the "infallible Ordinary Magisterium" these neo-cons source from, your chances of getting to Heaven would be better if you converted to Buhdism, Islam or practiced voodoo. Representatives of these false religions were invited to Assisi, not you. They like the Pope and don't criticize him for he acknowledges their religions. So they're OK.

Agree with the Pope in all things and you too may go to Heaven. Another caveat, argued by the same neo-cons, is that even if Hell exists, it very well may be empty.

You can't lose!

[drstevej]

Take two asprins and ping me in the morning. It is a Hatfield/McCoy type debate.

Peace