|
Post by Pacelli on Feb 15, 2018 14:45:11 GMT -5
I am beginning a new thread dedicated to this topic with the hope that it will clear up the incorrect idea that the emergence of the new sect at Vatican II caused a defection in the Catholic Church. I would ask ask all participants in this thread to please first read THIS
I am making the following assertions about Vatican II and Paul VI, and how they affect the indefectibility of the Church: 1. Even though Paul VI was elected in an apparent legitimate election by the Cardinals, he was never peacefully accepted by the Catholic Church. Turmoil on matters of doctrine ruled the day right from the start of his Pontoficate. He never confirmed his brethren in the Faith, rather he at a minimum tolerated the doctrinal chaos throughout the Council, and by his inaction gave tacit support to the heretics. 2. Catholics who kept the Faith in the 1960’s did not adopt the heretical interpretation of the Council documents, as were being implemented by Paul VI. They continued to believe the true Faith, whole and entire despite Paul VI’s imposition of the new teaching on the Church. Many justified their refusal to submit by arguing that there were orthodox interpretations of the Council, thereby creating a bridge to remain in communion with Paul VI while simultaneously keeping the Faith. 3. Paul VI’s inaction, followed later by his heretical actions of approving the Council documents create a doubt, at a minimum, about his orthodoxy in 1963 and 1964. I contend that the Church as a whole did not embrace the fullness of his papacy, merely the election. In order for the Church to fully accept a Pope, the moral majjoruty of Catholics must submit to his teaching and ruling authority, which is something that did not completely happen with Paul VI. As stated above, many Catholics continued to believe the Faith despite Paul VI, and did not embrace the new and heretical teaching of Vatican II, despite the fact that Paul VI was showing through his words and actions that he believed in the true and heretical interpretion of Vatican II. 4. With these facts and assertions in mind, when Paul VI approved Lumen Gentium in 1964, and later the rest of the documents in 1965, he was not acting as a certain Pope, who as Pope would bind the entire Church to not only the words of the Council, but the meaning of those words as understood by Paul VI. If there was a real double meaning, Catholics who truly submitted to Paul VI would not have privately maintained an orthodox interpretation, they as loyal subjects to the Holy See would have sought out an authoritative interpretation of the documents to make sure they remained in the same mind as the Pope. 5. With Paul VI’s doubtful status, his approval of the documents was not an approval by a Pope, meaning the documents are not part of the teaching of the Church. This means, in short, that these documents, all others after Vatican II, and all others actions such as the Novus Ordo Missae, and all changes to the sacramental rites did not come from the Church. 6. It is also a fact that members of the hierarchy continued to believe the same Faith that existed prior to the Council, so living successors of the Apostles continued to exist after the Council. The Church did not defect due to a complete defection of the hierarchy. A partial defection, which clearly happened, is not enough. So long as true successors of the Apostles remain alive in the world, the apostolic succession cannot be argued to have failed. 7. As the Church does not own Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, the new and possibly invalid sacramental rites, etc., due to the doubtful status of Paul VI, none of this can be used ss an argument that the Catholic Church itself has defected from the true Faith or the has defected from being the certain protector of the validity and holiness of get scarmental rites. 8. With the apostolic succession intact, although diminished in size as to numbers of actual successors, and the true doctrine untouched by Vatican II, the Church is existing in the same essential manner as it existed in 1962, with the purity of the Faith fully intact, and the successors of the Apostles alive throughout this crisis who believe and profess this Faith. 9. With all of this in mind, no global defection of the entire Catholic Church took place at Vatican II. There was a defection, but that defection waa a partial defection led by the heretical papal claimant, Paul VI and the members of the hierarchy who followed him in the establishment of the new heretical and schismatic sect.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 14:57:30 GMT -5
I am beginning a new thread dedicated to this topic with the hope that it will clear up the incorrect idea that the emergence of the new sect at Vatican II caused a defection in the Catholic Church. I would ask ask all participants in this thread to please first read THIS
I am making the following assertions about Vatican II and Paul VI, and how they affect the indefectibility of the Church: I would like to offer some general thoughts to start, and perhaps we can start slowly. Also, if I ever quote any other who uses the word, "heretic" please note this is not me making this judgment. I use the term as the doctor or theologian uses the term and usually keep them for context of how they thought or termed thoughts. I make no such judgments. 1. Even though Paul VI was elected in an apparent legitimate election by the Cardinals, he was never peacefully accepted by the Catholic Church. Turmoil on matters of doctrine ruled the day right from the start of his Pontoficate. He never confirmed his brethren in the Faith, rather he at a minimum tolerated the doctrinal chaos throughout the Council, and by his inaction gave tacit support to the heretics. Going by what Cardinal Billot stated, if he is accepted and joined to the church as the head to the body, we cannot further consider the question of a possible mistake in the election. To my knowledge, he was acknowledged as Pope, whether it was peaceful or not. If you have evidence from the time when he was elected to support your assertion, I will gladly read it. 2. Catholics who kept the Faith in the 1960’s did not adopt the heretical interpretation of the Council documents, as were being implemented by Paul VI. They continued to believe the true Faith, whole and entire despite Paul VI’s imposition of the new teaching on the Church. Many justified their refusal to submit by arguing that there were orthodox interpretations of the Council, thereby creating a bridge to remain in communion with Paul VI while simultaneously keeping the Faith. For now, I have no rebuttal, but reserve comment for later. 3. Paul VI’s inaction, followed later by his heretical actions of approving the Council documents create a doubt, at a minimum, about his orthodoxy in 1963 and 1964. I contend that the Church as a whole did not embrace the fullness of his papacy, merely the election. In order for the Church to fully accept a Pope, the moral majjoruty of Catholics must submit to his teaching and ruling authority, which is something that did not completely happen with Paul VI. As stated above, many Catholics continued to believe the Faith despite Paul VI, and did not embrace the new and heretical teaching of Vatican II, despite the fact that Paul VI was showing through his words and actions that he believed in the true and heretical interpretion of Vatican II. If his election is embraced and he is joined to the church, he is the head. We are to no longer consider a mistake in the election or of a possible deficiency of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. The acceptance of the church heals the mistake in the election and infallibly indicates the existence of all requisite conditions. I would need to see evidence otherwise of a "moral majority" makes a pope fully the pope. I am not claiming I have all the evidence. I have tried to find all the evidence I can to try and address these questions too. So if you have evidence different from what Cardinal Billot wrote on the matter, I will consider it. 4. With these facts and assertions in mind, when Paul VI approved Lumen Gentium in 1964, and later the rest of the documents in 1965, he was not acting as a certain Pope, who as Pope would bind the entire Church to not only the words of the Council, but the meaning of those words as understood by Paul VI. If there was a real double meaning, Catholics who truly submitted to Paul VI would not have privately maintained an orthodox interpretation, they as loyal subjects to the Holy See would have sought out an authoritative interpretation of the documents to make sure they remained in the same mind as the Pope. If he is Pope, he is always acting as Pope, especially in so ratifying these documents with magisterial authority. Bellarmine and others wrote the Pope was to be obeyed. Vatican I was clear on what the authority of the Pope was. 5. With Paul VI’s doubtful status, his approval of the documents was not an approval by a Pope, meaning the documents are not part of the teaching of the Church. This means, in short, that these documents, all others after Vatican II, and all others actions such as the Novus Ordo Missae, and all changes to the sacramental rites did not come from the Church. I think this bullet point is what inevitable leads to your conclusions in #9. There really is no other option then. 6. It is also a fact that members of the hierarchy continued to believe the same Faith that existed prior to the Council, so living successors of the Apostles continued to exist after the Council. The Church did not defect due to a complete defection of the hierarchy. A partial defection, which clearly happened, is not enough. So long as true successors of the Apostles remain alive in the world, the apostolic succession cannot be argued to have failed. A partial defection is enough. I believe that every doctor and theologian who wrote about the indefectibility of the Church did not believe a partial defection would have no effect on this indefectibility, immutability and perpetuity. Defection has nothing to do with apostolic succession remaining alive or continuing, but I think this thought alone would need to be another separate thread. 7. As the Church does not own Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, the new and possibly invalid sacramental rites, etc., due to the doubtful status of Paul VI, none of this can be used ss an argument that the Catholic Church itself has defected from the true Faith or the has defected from being the certain protector of the validity and holiness of get scarmental rites. I think #7 is trying to save the magesterium from herself. By saying Rome does not own Vatican II is like playing hot potato, "not mine, not mine." Who owns it then? This is almost like giving them plausible deniability. I think Rome has definitively said for 60 years that Vatican II is her stamp on the faith. 8. With the apostolic succession intact, although diminished in size as to numbers of actual successors, and the true doctrine untouched by Vatican II, the Church is existing in the same essential manner as it existed in 1962, with the purity of the Faith fully intact, and the successors of the Apostles alive throughout this crisis who believe and profess this Faith. This is from The Creed Explained by the Rev. Arthur Devine (1897): "They have held various opinions as to the possibility of defection": A. Some have held that the whole Church can fail entirely for a time. B. Some say the visible Church can fail but not the invisible Church (as if these were two distinct Churches.) C. Others affirm that, although the Church cannot fail entirely, she can do so in part, at least for a time, and even always by losing this or that attribute or perfection, or retaining it but maimed and vitiated. I appreciate you saying the apostolic succession is intact and has not lost any perfection. However, you advocate that it was diminished in some capacity due to Vatican II, which seems to suggest something critical was lost. 9. With all of this in mind, no global defection of the entire Catholic Church took place at Vatican II. There was a defection, but that defection waa a partial defection led by the heretical papal claimant, Paul VI and the members of the hierarchy who followed him in the establishment of the new heretical and schismatic sect. What more can I possible say than what you said regarding what I have been asking? First, there is nowhere that I've read, in the definitions of the indefectibility of the church from any writer or doctor, who ever proposes a partial defection as being possible while simultaneously saying the indefectibility of the church would remain untouched. This is what created the final rub for me (on another site) because though they stated I "caused them" to say the church defected. I merely pointed out through their endless comments about heresy, schism, etc that this was in essence what they were saying. I believe that, in all that you have said, there is no way to say it without in some way saying some sort of defection has happened. You told me in my other thread, "I think your assertions [below], which you base on what others have told you are the source of why you are thinking the way you do. You have made assumptions built upon misinformation, and due to that you think it’s one way or the other, defection of the Church or the Vatican II sects ..." What should I conclude when one says, "there was a defection" but it is only a "partial defection?" The conclusion I come to is that this describes a defection. Thank you for your post and thoughts and I look forward to a discussion on this.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 17, 2018 7:28:35 GMT -5
What defection did Christ promises protect us from? Did the Church of Moses...the Seat of Moses completely defect? If so explain Christs deferences to its authority?
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2018 8:59:00 GMT -5
What defection did Christ promises protect us from? Did the Church of Moses...the Seat of Moses completely defect? If so explain Christs deferences to its authority? I am having a hard time following your question, so can you clarify a few things for me please? When you mention, "Christ's promises" do you have a particular scripture(s) you are referencing? I am having a hard time with the term "Church of Moses." Can you clarify this? Regarding the complete defection of the seat of Moses, are you talking about in Moses' time, after he died or after the advent of the Church? I do not honestly understand what Christ's respect or humble submission (deference) to the seat of Moses refers to in your question? Is your question that the chair of Moses defected, and then Christ was still obedient to it? If you could please clarify, I would appreciate it. Generally, Jesus' entire earthly mission was marked by obedience. Paul said that Christ humbled himself to take on flesh and humbled himself to the point of accepting death on the cross. This question seems to suggest that because Jesus was obedient to a "defected Chair," i.e. the defected chair of Moses, we should do the same to the "defected chair of Peter?" I don't know if that is what you're suggesting, I am hoping you can clarify. I do know that the Popes through history took quite a strong stand on what the Chair of Peter meant at its establishment, especially in light of Matthew 16:18. Besides, I have never said sedes did not have deference or respect for the Chair of Peter or the Papacy, even if it is "defected" or empty.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 17, 2018 12:48:14 GMT -5
Old testement Church. Seat of Moses.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Feb 17, 2018 13:50:27 GMT -5
Vinny wrote: I agree with your use of the term, “heretic.” The term has been abused in our times by many who use it too loosely. The term has a very specific meaning in both theology and law, and Catholics should not turn it into a cheap cuss word.
Vinny wrote:
Let’s take a careful look at what Billot taught: (my Emphasis added):
I agree with the fact that a mistake in election would be healed by the adherence of the Church of the new Pope. This teaching, IMO destroys the Siri thesis in regards to Pope John XXIII. There is no doubt that the Church adhered to him by a peaceful acceptance, meaning that they accepted him as the rule of Faith, the teacher and lawgiver.
I contest this in regards to Paul VI, however. Paul VI was not acting as a teacher of the flock, he was not confirming his brethren in the Faith. The faithful Catholics, in order to be faithful Catholics, rejected Paul VI’s new doctrines, even if this was done by forcing an orthodox meaning on clearly unorthodox documents.
The turmoil at the Council, which is well documented was a battle between heresy and orthodoxy, and Paul VI was not acting as Teacher of the Church and ending the debate in favor of the orthodox doctrine. He was initially tolerating the deviations from Catholic truth, and then, in the end, using his apparent papal authority to confirm the new erroneous and heretical doctrines and by that apparenntly bound the flock to the new doctrines.
I contest that the Church adhered to him as the rule of Faith, and maintain that his status as Pope was not settled on by the Church due to this. Catholics were not immediately submittting to the new doctrines in the same manner as they submitted to doctrine as taught by Pius XII or any other certain Pope. There was hesitation and perplexity among the faithful Catholics which showed itself in their doing violence to the Vatican II texts to protect themselves from the new heresy and errors.
Paul VI was a false rule of Faith, he was a teacher of error, and Catholics were at a minimum passively keeping their Faith by not accepting him as a true rule of Faith. The fact that Catholics were not outwardly denouncing Paul VI, does not mean that they were believing his new doctrine, and by the fact that they were not believing him, is in and of itself proof that Catholics were not universally adhering to him as Pope.
More later...
|
|