|
Post by tradrev on Dec 21, 2013 16:12:16 GMT
I know not how to enter this forum. Perhaps I should do more examination of this website and forum etc. On the other hand time keeps moving on and since I use a library computer here in Saint Clair, Missouri, which closes in 4 hours until Tuesday morning, I'll post a couple links to better express my thinking (one link here and one on a thread on Communion in the Hand) QUESTIONS: 1) Is this almost entirely a forum with posters living in Ireland? 2) How extensively is the term TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS used in Ireland and on this forum (I guess I should see for myself) ANYWAY, Vatican II has been my most pressing topic of interest and discussion since the end of 1985 when I was pondering the question (calmly then and just to connect cause and effect) : SINCE THE CHURCH PROCLAIMS VATICAN II, TO BE A COUNCIL FIRST OF ALL DUE TO THE HOLY SPIRIT (A PERFECT CAUSE), HOW DO WE EXPLAIN THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS. What happened since is a long story - and complete failure on my part ( to help see the situation resolved). Anyway my thinking on Vatican II is very firmly set after 25 years (actually changed very little since 1986). Seven years ago I wrote a 30 page summary of my thinking and it is labeled 30PAGEPAPER for anyone wishing to read it at link to vaticaniidebate.com
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 24, 2013 23:36:10 GMT
Might I point out that quite a few of the major General Councils have had negative effects (Ephesus and Chalcedon led to large and permanent - at least to the present - schisms) while several others in the mediaeval period were ineffective (cf the reform decrees of Lateran V, held just before the Reformation, which it might have averted if it hadn't been ignored). That doesn't mean they weren't real Councils
|
|
|
Post by tradrev on Dec 30, 2013 16:19:32 GMT
* The point whish I wanted to emphasize is as follows.*
The Holy Spirit as a Perfect Cause cannot act without producing positive effects.
The overall effects of Vatican II have been very devastating upon the Church ( no other councils have done so).
Hence it is impossible that the Holy Spirit willed Vatican II and acted as first cause in having it come about (foreseeing the devastation, He would be the cause if He moved the popes to call it).
1. Vaican II is a REAL COUNCIL - is quite obvious.
2. Dietrich von Hildebrand wrote the book THE DEVASTATED VINEYARD and the editorial by the editor of Christian Order (link was supplied), and many other works like POPE JOHN"S REVOLUTION and many short writings all testify to the GREAT DECAY of the Church due to Vatican II.
3. It baffles me how you can say his terrible decay would have happened anyway.
|
|
|
Post by tradrev on Jan 4, 2014 17:18:13 GMT
***** SUMMARY OF WHY VATICAN II SCATTERED THE CHURCH - POPE LEO XIII *****
In his encyclical of August 4, 1879, Pope Leo XIII sang the HIGH PRAISES of Saint Thomas Aquinas, setting forth the WARNING that were Saint Thomas Aquinas ever removed from his place of authority, then the CHURCH COULD RATHER EASILY BE SCATTERED the her enemies:
"Lastly another crown seems to have been kept for this peerless man - that is, the way in which he extorts homage , praise, and admiration even from the enemies of the Catholic name. It is well known that there have not been wanting heresiarchs who openly said that, if the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas could only be got rid of, they could 'easily give battle to other Catholic Doctors, and overcome them. and so scatter the Church'. A vain hope indeed, but no vain testimony."
Pope Leo could not IMAGINE a COUNCIL like Vatican II - so to replace the GREATEST WISDOM GIVEN THE CHURCH, by COUNTERFEIT.
And I must say that the MOST SOLID MARK of the SSPX, is their great allegiance to SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS - as was traditional. And secondly the SSPX priests are trained and formed to STRIVE FOR HOLINESS.
|
|
|
Post by tradrev on Jan 4, 2014 17:35:26 GMT
*** 300 plus miracles, prior to canonization, via the Holy Spirit, were not for naught *** Jacques Maritain in his book titled St. Thomas Aquinas, has compiled a list showing the many TESTIMONIES of the Popes regarding St. Thomas. If you wish see for yourselves by going to this link and then clicking on Testimonies of the Popes : Saint Thomas Aquinas
|
|
|
Post by tradrev on Jan 4, 2014 17:46:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 8, 2014 17:01:34 GMT
Your argument that because Vatican II had harmful effects the Holy Spirit cannot have willed it is a very odd one. By the same logic you could say that the Creation cannot have been the work of God because it led to a great deal of evil, or that God cannot have instituted the Sacraments because this led to their desecration.
|
|
|
Post by tradrev on Jan 10, 2014 16:21:41 GMT
Your argument that because Vatican II had harmful effects the Holy Spirit cannot have willed it is a very odd one. By the same logic you could say that the Creation cannot have been the work of God because it led to a great deal of evil, or that God cannot have instituted the Sacraments because this led to their desecration. hibernius, You are not treating my argument correctly. God only permits evil ( say negative effects) for the greater good. We are told that and can also conclude that from what we know about God (a Perfect Cause and all the attributes made clear by St. Thomas Aquinas). You could challenge my conclusion 'that Vatican II has brought great harm to the Church' (overall effect), and so argue the case. But it yet remains that as a Perfect Cause, any action of God MUST YIELD POSITIVE EFFECTS. And then any evil effects must be attributed to secondary causes who failed in their duty. In any case, if God acts, the good must out-weigh the evil or negative, and none of the evil can be attributed to God. Dietrich von Hildebrand (20th century doctor of the Church concluded Pope Pius XII) summed up the state of the Catholic Church after Vatican II by aligning himself with those of The Babylonian Captivity saying : "By the Streams of Babylon we sat and wept, when we remembered Zion". His memory of the Church before Vatican II, while seeing its state after Vatican II, WAS CAUSE FOR WEEPING. Of course, you can challenge both of us in our evaluation. Is that not a main purpose of a FORUM? My deep gut feeling and thinking regarding the Documents of Vatican II, is that they are a GREAT INSULT to the Church (lacking clarity, precision and use of traditional Church language - IN THE EXTREME ON ALL POINTS - AND ALL DELIBERATE)
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 10, 2014 20:29:31 GMT
I must say that your argument seems to me (a) to have no sense of proportion (b) to be contradictory. To take the second first - you are saying that Vatican II was a genuine Council but that it can nonetheless be retrospectively nullified. If it can be nullified, it never was a Council; if it was a COuncil, it can't be nullified (as distinct from modified/reinterpreted), any more than (say) it would be legitimate to say that since Cardinal Rampolla would have been elected Pope without the Austrian veto, the acts of St Pius X and his successors can be retrospectively invalidated. If such a thing were possible, it would never be possible to trust in the authority of a Pope or General Council ever again. You say you greatly admire the SSPX position; I am afraid your position on Vatican II reminds me of the way in which the SSPX claim to recognise the Pope as Pope while refusing to yield him the minimum of obedience due to a Pope. Doris Manly used to quote the humorous rhyme: Mother, can I go to swim? Yes, my darling daughter - Hang your clothes on a hickory limb, But don't go near the water.
Not to put too fine a point about it, your position is a humbug on a level with Karl Rahner's reinterpretation of the JEsuit oath of loyalty to the Pope to mean that Jesuits can disobey the direct commands of the actually existing Pope in the name of a hypothetical future Pope who will agree with said JEsuits.
Now for your major point - In order to support your position on Vatican II you would need to establish that the harmful effects which followed the Council were a direct result of the Council (rather than, say, being the result of flaws which were already there before the Council), and that they would not have happened without the Council (quite a few of the post-Conciliar changes, for good and ill, are outworkings of changes going back at least to St. Pius X and Leo XIII), and that the evil which has come from the Council outweighs any possible good; which would be difficult given that the Church thinks in centuries. (Might it be possible, for example, for someone 50 years after Nicaea or Chalcedon to argue that the Church was worse off after them than before, and that they had done more harm than good? They could certainly have pointed to all sorts of schisms, scandals, bloodshed, and other harms.) You would also need to go into detail about precisely what you think was wrong with the Council and why, rather than engaging in generalised expressions of disgust at the Council documents. Finally, it is wishful thinking of the highest level to think that even if Vatican II were abrogated (which it can't and won't be) we would automatically revert to the status quo ante. We have to start frm where we are now.
|
|
|
Post by tradrev on Jan 14, 2014 17:07:55 GMT
hibernicus, I must say that the extensive research and writings by Atila S. Guimaraes are not my favorite reading (to say the least, as there are very extensive quotations and footnotes). But if you want documentation, he supplies it. Volume four of his eleven volumes on Vatican II is titled (English translation) DESIRE TO DESTROY. If any writing really seeks to prove the culpability of Vatican II - surely this book does. John Vennari and Michael J. Matt approve of this book. Links below: link to John Vennarui to Michael J. Matt
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 14, 2014 21:36:17 GMT
May I suggest that if you find Mr Guimaraes' teachings so convincing you should summarise them rather than expecting anyone who is looking for a statement of your position to plough through all his volumes (and you might also explain WHY you find them so convincing, so as to know what to look for). I can see several problems with Mr Vennari's review right away - whether these are due to Guimaraes or Vennari is not clear from the review: (1) He talks as if Catholic theology never changed at all between the New Testament and the Second Vatican Council, whereas there have always been different schools of Catholic theology. Scholasticism was once an innovation as compared to the patristic method inherited by BErnard of Clairvaux. On Mr Vennaris logic, the scholastics should have been condemned for "junking 1000 years of Catholic theology" etc. (2) He talks as if the nouvelle theologie explicitly set out to reject traditional Catholic theology en bloc, whereas it set out to retrieve elements of earlier theological approaches which had become obscured (including a strong argument that many later interpreters of Aquinas had misinterpreted him). (3) He also argues that a theologian once condemned should never be rehabilitated. There goes Aquinas; there goes Chrysostom, etc (4) Having set up a false binary where you must be either totally for or totally against tradition as defined by Vennari or Guimaraes, the reviewer then lumps in all the "nouvelle theologiens" together, so that for him there is no difference between Kung and Ratzinger and any heretical statement made by one "new theologian" implicates them all. This is like the Flat Earth Society claiming that because Richard Dawkins and I both reject the Flat Earth Society, there is no difference whatsoever between me and Richard Dawkins and I must therefore be an atheist.
I would agree with the author of that piece, though that excommunication nowadays is used far too sparingly - for example, whoever is responsible for those libellous statements in that review,(certainly Vennari, and Guimaraes as well if this correctly represents him) should IMHO be excommunicated.
|
|
|
Post by tradrev on Jan 15, 2014 15:56:37 GMT
hiberrnicus,
I keep being amazed at how immense in number and broad are the beliefs of mankind. This in no way is meant to be a criticism of you, but simply an observation and reflection.
We are very much united ( you will likely question this - at least much more then I will) on what is really important, namely the TRUTHS that Jesus Christ, Son of God from all eternity, united to Himself a human nature, so to redeem mankind etc etc and did indeed found a Church, ONE TRUE CHURCH, with the Pope as His vicar etc etc.
Now a Catholic is either a Traditional Catholic or no Catholic at all. And yet since Dec. 15, 1985 I very much have become what is now referred to as a Traditional Catholic in a way unheard of before Vatican II. It is all very complex - and in God's eyes so very simple.
Anyway, being raised in and growing up where I have, the two main Catholic publications which I read and grew to greatly trust were THE REMNANT, taken over by Michael J. Matt from his father who split off from the very sound Catholic newspaper THE WANDERER (of the Matt family), after Vatican II, because his father was greatly upset and distressed over the WINDS OF CHANGE coming from Rome, and especially THE NEW MASS and many other disturbing things: and the other publication is CATHOLIC FAMILY NEWS with John Vennari as editor.
And so regarding Mr. Guimaraes' writings, I react more to my long held, firmly held thinking about the Catholic Church, and so find his thinking very much my own - I AM PREDISPOSED from many small or larger pieces of reading, observing and perhaps anguishing.
But I agree with you - I do not expect you to wade through his writings. And yet I disagree at the same time for there is much value in the fact that he has gone to so much trouble to engage in an area of thought - mostly rejected. But to read the reviews by Mr. Vennari and Mr. Matt is relatively easy reading, and if you held the same respect for THE REMNANT and CATHOLIC FAMILY NEWS which I have... Of course this was a question mark in my mind - but yet it seemed a good idea either way to send the links.
P.S. Am planning to send another page (previously prepared) as wanted to discuss a couple points - if you so agree.
|
|
|
Post by tradrev on Jan 15, 2014 20:43:46 GMT
hibernicus,
PLEASE CLARIFY IF YOU WILL.
Decided yesterday to sidestep your comment regarding (in your opinion) my contradictory statement or position : 'a genuine or valid Council can be declared null and void' - in most extreme cases. - my purpose was so to prepare a more direct or proper reply.
QUESTIONS TO YOU IF YOU WILL
1. Applying the term or word 'Council' in a very broad sense ( a gathering of Churchmen, called together by a valid superior, to decide some matters): *** When does a Council or group of Churchmen, called together by the Pope to decide some matters, become of a higher authority then the Pope (or any pope). [ a) the Council itself, b) The documents or decisions of the Council]. ***
2. In your opinion, in general or specific (when applicable or possible), TO WHAT DEGREE (OR HOW) CAN VATICAN II, OR ANY COUNCIL, BE MODIFIED/REINTERPRETED;
a) From the standpoint of those who make the MODIFICATIONS/REINTERPRETATIONS
b) From the standpoint of the DOCUMENTS. (what changes are possible?)
NOTE; To all the above, it is the principles being applied which is the main question.
|
|