Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2020 12:23:49 GMT -5
In the mind of traditional Catholics, is there actually any significance of vatican II and are there any real life consequences of significance to the tradional catholic today?
In all appearances, "most" Catholics have a place to go to mass and receive sacraments. Granted there are fewer options but for a persistent soul, it appears very achievable in our day. I personally would only attend mass under a bishop/priest consecrated/ordained under Pope Pius XII. For me after the death of Pius XII, all bets are off. However, I don't hold anything against others who think differently and I'm happy they are able to find a reasonable option in our times.
My question is if bishops can continually be consecrated and priests ordained, after God seems to have clearly allowed an eclipse and the rites to be altered, what is the point of all these new appointments and why is vatican II even a crisis at all? Currently sitting at 50+ years with no pope, did God want us to take the law into our own hands and now cling to the lineages of Lefebvre and Thuc for example even though he just permitted the rites to be obliterated at the same time? I do not see a point in that concept. God could have just simply extended the crisis and the rites being changed for an additional amount of time to cover us and we would still have access to the pre-v2 hierarchy. I submit it happened exactly when it did, exactly the way our Lord wanted it to and it has far greater significance than people seem to acknowledge. Example: I read an article where a traditional bishop says (and this is a common recurring quote from post v2 clergy) they continue because the "salvation of souls is the the supreme law". This is true. However, I feel the bigger point is being missed which is that God, by basically forcing his hand and allowing the devastating sacramental rite changes, that our Lord himself trumped the "supreme law" so to speak...
I truly see the post vatican II landscape as man's natural solutions to God's supernatural, designed, implemented and allowed crisis which I believe corresponds to the end times, the message of fatima and the timing, church in eclipse, false popes, abomination of desolation and the loss of sacraments in the end times.
I'd like to hear others perspectives.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 19, 2020 7:58:07 GMT -5
Interesting but I'm not really clear what your main point is. I do like the question about "taking matters into our own hands" I find this to be the novelty of the Sede groups...and they are beginning to create schism amongst the Trads. Especially in regard to Masses una cum Frank.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2020 8:58:07 GMT -5
Hi Vox,
Thanks for the reply. I think my main thought is that vatican II was one of the most important events in history and it took place at a very specific time. While the initial reaction may have been/still is "what can we do to fix this"... it seems like it should be met with more of a response like "what does something this monumental actually mean, who is the supreme author of it and what does the author expect us to do given the signs, times we live in, commentary on end times, changes that took place and years without authority"
I can't escape the reality that God is clearly the author of this situation. My second main thought is how can consecrations (in traditional circles) today even be justified when God Himself abolished the rites for making priests and bishops. When God stops that process, who are we to step in and look for the loopholes or bend laws, especially lacking a Pope? As if God didn't know what He was doing at exactly the time He ordained it to take place.
Further, whatever actions took place early on is another discussion... However, here we are 50+ years later with full knowledge of the complete destruction that took place and men still being ordained and consecrated in defiance of needing a papal mandate. Will these individuals ever need a Pope or will they ever need to follow laws or forever just claim things like "supplied", "epikeia", "souls is supreme law", "God himself provides us with our authority"... it never ends. Even though God ended it (in my view). Why don't people think the sacramental changes were one of the most important events in human history and why don't they ponder WHY rather than where can they still be fed on Sunday. In their minds even if there is no place to be fed, they WILL be fed! Just my perspective.
We had a perfect hierarchy and a reigning Pope and all sacramental rites in place, the church was flourishing. Then God stopped everything. I believe it's a horribly thin argument that God took that hierarchy away and then decided all of the sudden he wanted the faithful to approach a small handful of clergy with sketchy backgrounds, with disagreements about their lineages and characters and disagreements regarding their doctrines. Highly unlikely. What seems more likely is that God clearly allowed the changes and we are to understand the signs and hold the faith and adhere to the current laws since the death of the last Pope.
When God allowed the second vatican council and the rite changes it was for a reason. Again, I am convinced what we see today is man's natural soultions to God's supernatural, divine plan.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 19, 2020 10:33:17 GMT -5
I'm not sure I agree...God cannot be the author of error or confusion.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 19, 2020 10:34:24 GMT -5
Gods permissive will is different than His positive will yes?
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2020 10:46:18 GMT -5
Correct. It would be more along the lines of divine providence and God knew this situation would happen and His church would reach this point and He allowed it to be so.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2020 11:02:59 GMT -5
Perhaps "authored" is a misleading term. Allowed or permitted is better.
|
|
|
Post by semperfidelis on Feb 24, 2020 10:14:34 GMT -5
Perhaps "authored" is a misleading term. Allowed or permitted is better. If I understand what you are saying correctly, you seem to be claiming that God cut off the sacraments and the clergy from the laity after Vatican II, and it is impious therefore for the laity to seek such things as these are man's solutions to the crisis. To start with, I think it wise to divide your argument into more specific points. The first question is, should bishops without ordinary jurisdiction ordain men to provide sacraments to the faithful in the crisis? The second question is, can the faithful receive the sacraments from catholic priests and bishops who do not have ordinary jurisdiction? As to the first, I have far to little knowledge to claim to know the answer. All I can say is that, somewhere there has to be clergy with jurisdiction, sacraments, and a lawful hierarchy because the Church, which must include all of the above, must last till the end of time. God has promised this, so the notion that the Church has lost these is incompatible with God's promise. But in regards to the latter point, I believe it is clear that the Church does allow laity to access such clergy lawfully which, when it comes to saving our soul, is what needs to concern us. In Canon Law it specifically states that the laity can approach such ministers (ministers who do not have ordinary jurisdiction) for any just cause. Canon 2261 1. One excommunicated is prohibited from confecting and administering licitly the Sacraments and Sacramentals, except for the exceptions that follow. 2. The faithful, with due regard for the prescription of 3., can for any just cause seek the Sacraments and Sacramentals from one excommunicated, especially if other ministers are lacking, and then the one who is excommunicate and approached can administer these and is under no obligation of inquiring the reasons from the one requesting.
3. But from a banned excommunicate and from others excommunicated after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has come, only the faithful in danger of death can ask for sacramental absolution according to the norm of Canons 882 and 2252 and even, if other ministers are lacking, other Sacraments and Sacramentals. Canon 2265 Acts of jurisdiction, whether for the external forum or the internal forum, placed by one excommunicated are illicit; and if a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been laid down, they are also invalid with due regard for the prescription of Canon 2261, 3.; otherwise, they are valid and, indeed, are even licit if they are sought by a member of the faithful according to the norm of the mentioned Canon 2261, 2.
In regards to what constitutes a "just cause", I hoped I attached Rev Augustine's commentary on Canon 2261 from his Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law. (1917 Code) What you can read there is that the bar to have permission to make such a request from such a minister is very low, ie. "any reason may be called just which promotes devotion or wards off temptations or is prompted by real convenience...". So to sum up, it is my opinion that one can (which is different than must) certainly utilize such clergy to help him save his soul which is our sole priority here on earth. As to how the legitimate Church has survived or how this crisis will be solved is neither our responsibility nor in our capacity to resolve as laymen. It is in God's Hands, and there are no better Hands for it to be in. Attachments:3716.pdf (247.92 KB)
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2020 9:58:55 GMT -5
I appreciate your response. I think opinions on the application is all we can do in this crisis we live in.
Yes, breaking it up into two questions could make it easier for precision into those two points but it seems to gloss over the bigger issue of why God allowed the rites to be destroyed in the first place. I still think the main thought I'm trying to get across would fall under the first point more, which is whether traditional clergy should do what they do at all given what took place.
I completely submit and agree with all the canon laws but it seems they mosty already assume that one was licit, was recognized by the church or had ordinary jurisdiction...at some point in time. What we have today, it appears as if men are discarding the laws or looking for loopholes and continuing by their own will. At what point is the line crossed? It's quite circular to say they can go on without any recourse to authority. Who is the final arbiter of whether one should or should not get ordained/consecrated? If I follow this logic nearly anyone can get ordained/consecrated and the "church would supply" due to the faithful requesting for just cause. It begs the question, will the pope ever be necessary again in regards to orders given this kind of thinking?
Touching on your point and the fact of "the chuch lasting until the end of time"... Additionally, there are still old priests/bishops in the latin rite who are valid and who at least had jurisdiction at one point even though they are old. Technically without new traditional clergy and if the world ended tomorrow, our Lord's word would have been kept. Also, add to that there is still a complete Catholic eastern rite hierarchy all of which seems to be a bigger problem for justification of current traditional bishops and priests doing what they do. In other words, given the eastern Catholic lineages alone, Christ's words are still upheld and apostolic succession continues.
|
|
|
Post by semperfidelis on Mar 23, 2020 9:35:36 GMT -5
I appreciate your response. I think opinions on the application is all we can do in this crisis we live in. Yes, breaking it up into two questions could make it easier for precision into those two points but it seems to gloss over the bigger issue of why God allowed the rites to be destroyed in the first place. I still think the main thought I'm trying to get across would fall under the first point more, which is whether traditional clergy should do what they do at all given what took place. I completely submit and agree with all the canon laws but it seems they mosty already assume that one was licit, was recognized by the church or had ordinary jurisdiction...at some point in time. What we have today, it appears as if men are discarding the laws or looking for loopholes and continuing by their own will. At what point is the line crossed? It's quite circular to say they can go on without any recourse to authority. Who is the final arbiter of whether one should or should not get ordained/consecrated? If I follow this logic nearly anyone can get ordained/consecrated and the "church would supply" due to the faithful requesting for just cause. It begs the question, will the pope ever be necessary again in regards to orders given this kind of thinking? Touching on your point and the fact of "the chuch lasting until the end of time"... Additionally, there are still old priests/bishops in the latin rite who are valid and who at least had jurisdiction at one point even though they are old. Technically without new traditional clergy and if the world ended tomorrow, our Lord's word would have been kept. Also, add to that there is still a complete Catholic eastern rite hierarchy all of which seems to be a bigger problem for justification of current traditional bishops and priests doing what they do. In other words, given the eastern Catholic lineages alone, Christ's words are still upheld and apostolic succession continues. Thinking about the bigger issue as you put it, I am inclined to think of it in terms of the Ascension of Christ. Why did the visible Christ leave His faithful in the first place? Perhaps there is something to the fact that as humans, we do not appreciate what we have until it is taken away. Could this not be true for the sacraments and the Hierarchy of the Church as well? Had we not as a race become so presumptuous that they would always be readily accessible to us that we had lost the appreciation for them? Has it not re-awoken, at least in the first traditional generation, a new appreciation of being able to have even some of these things? As to your second conjecture of these canon laws being in place for those who at one time had jurisdiction, I would just express two points. One, there is nothing in these laws which restrict them being solely applicable to your criteria for an individual cleric, and therefore to claim such would be to add restrictions that are not in the law itself. Second, a lack of jurisdiction is the same status for one who had it and lost it and for one who never had it. In either case, the cleric involved do not have ordinary jurisdiction now. As to their behavior, I have not done enough research nor can I claim to have the intellectual ability to discern what are the legitimate limitations and actions one could take in regards to attaining or supplying Holy Orders in such a crisis as ours. Nor can I say that it concerns me. To me, my concern is where can I legitimately receive the sacraments to help me save my soul. Saving my soul is in my purview, fixing the crisis or in questions of doubt judging the actions of others are not. This is not to say that this is an never ending situation for when the proper authority clarifies our situation, this behavior will be resolved one way or another. For the Church to last till the end of time, she must have the ability to exercise her authority at all times, even if in the intern she is not doing so at least in relation to the current confusion surrounding the crisis. At some point, when things are clarified, I will readily and happily submit to the judgment of the Church. The traditional clergy will as well, or at least most of the ones I know, for they all have express a willingness and eagerness to do so. I guess only time can verify their sincerity. In our current situation, it is a lack of clarity and knowledge that is at the heart of the crisis. Where and who are the legitimate bishops who have an office? Where and who are these older priests who were granted jurisdiction and are still operating in the area of which their jurisdiction was granted? Are the legitimate bishops acting in accordance to their office? If they have ordinary jurisdiction yet, am I in their territorial jurisdiction? If not, how does this help me? These are not an easy questions to answer.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Mar 24, 2020 15:41:45 GMT -5
I believe the laity have a great amount of advantage to avoiding condemnation on the account of the hierarchy. The laity have leeway and some mitigating circumstances to cling to as long as they are seeking the master sincerely he will come to them as for the hierarchy may God have mercy on their souls.
|
|