Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2023 23:54:19 GMT -5
Father Sanborn wrote the above-titled series for The Roman Catholic I believe at some point in the 1990s. How would I find those sections of it? It’s not on TraditionalMass.org
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 25, 2023 11:32:51 GMT -5
Father Sanborn wrote the above-titled series for The Roman Catholic I believe at some point in the 1990s. How would I find those sections of it? It’s not on TraditionalMass.org I have tried to track down the back issues of The Roman Catholic with no success, except for the few articles online. The only way I think you will find these is to write SSPV, Bp. Sanborn or SGG, to request the scans. The only other way is to find a Catholic that received this publication and kept them. Does anyone on this board have the back issues of The Roman Catholic, and particularly the article being requested?
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 372
|
Post by John Lewis on Aug 27, 2023 5:24:35 GMT -5
Dominus Vobiscum, Pacelli, these might be what you are looking here. samuelsede has been doing some recent research and finding some things aren't as clear cut as we though they might be. He'll be sharing some quotes that he has found about things that may have an orthodox interpretation but are being used in other ways.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 27, 2023 5:56:56 GMT -5
Dominus Vobiscum, Pacelli, these might be what you are looking here. samuelsede has been doing some recent research and finding some things aren't as clear cut as we though they might be. He'll be sharing some quotes that he has found about things that may have an orthodox interpretation but are being used in other ways. Thank you. I am not sure if this is it, maybe Dominus Vobiscum will know. I would like to see Samuel Sede's findings. Vatican II can be interpreted in an orthodox manner, at least most of it. I think the charge that is better made against the the documents is that they used wording in the documents that opened the door to new interpretations that could lead to unorthodox teaching. The problem is that when there are two (or more) ways to interpret documents, it is for the authority to give the proper interpretation of what must be believed, not private individuals, and Rome since the council has done just that, through the magisterium of Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis, teaching has been given which supports the understanding that Vatican II did indeed have a rupture from the past teaching on many matters of doctrine. One clear place where I do not see any way out in the documents themselves without any way to interpret the matter in an orthodox manner is Dignitatis Humanae, as it directly contradicted previous magisterial teaching and there isn't really any way around that. Some have tried to show that DH was not a rupture, such as Brian Harrison and Thomas Pink, but I believe their efforts have not succeeded.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 27, 2023 13:39:01 GMT -5
Ehat about bergoglios condemnation of Death penalties
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 27, 2023 15:20:25 GMT -5
Ehat about bergoglios condemnation of Death penalties It is another important point, and a rupture from Church teaching.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2023 1:03:49 GMT -5
Dominus Vobiscum, Pacelli, these might be what you are looking here. samuelsede has been doing some recent research and finding some things aren't as clear cut as we though they might be. He'll be sharing some quotes that he has found about things that may have an orthodox interpretation but are being used in other ways. They are indeed. Thanks so much.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 372
|
Post by John Lewis on Aug 28, 2023 16:34:18 GMT -5
Dominus Vobiscum, Pacelli, these might be what you are looking here. samuelsede has been doing some recent research and finding some things aren't as clear cut as we though they might be. He'll be sharing some quotes that he has found about things that may have an orthodox interpretation but are being used in other ways. They are indeed. Thanks so much. You're welcome. Part III is also in there.
|
|