Gaudium et Spes

columba Sun Nov 11, 2012 8:54 pm

This is a follow-on from the previous thread where I still have a duty to respond to Mike concerning what I perceive to be errors contained in Gaudium et Spes and refuted in The Syllabus of Errors.

Before answering Mike, I wanted to have a thorough re-read through the document but in the process I couldn't help but become slightly depressed. Although it contains irrefutable Catholic teaching, it also contains so much banality that it becomes quite tedious to continue beyond a couple of chapters at a time.

Starting from the preface, I jotted down the thoughts that were going through my mind as I read certain passages. I got as far as the end of chapter 1.
I will continue the rest of the document without comment (I'll get through it much quicker that way) and make personal notes on those points I consider erroneous.

Hopefully you'll forgive the sarcastic tone that comes across in my comments. The sarcasm doesn't accurately reflect the more serene and non-confrontational disposition present while writing. I guess it's a trait inherited from my father when confronted with less than clear explanations. He took it that this signified the covering up of something, and he was always right on the money when drilling me and getting nothing but vague answers. (I was in my teens at the time). Very Happy

Gaudium et Spes

PREFACE

2. "Hence this Second Vatican Council, having probed more profoundly into the mystery of the Church,.."

Has the Second Vatican Council really probed more profoundly into the mystery of the Church? More profoundly than which other council? Have other councils ignored the profound mysteries of the Church and failed to probe those mysteries?

I can't see how the Second Vatican Council can hold claim to such an achievement and even if the answers to the above questions is Yes, then the Second Vatican Council definitely failed to make known in any comprehensible way to the faithful the results of this profound probing of the mysteries of the Church . The statement is misleading and I'm only at the preface.

3. "For the human person deserves to be preserved; human society deserves to be renewed. Hence the focal point of our total presentation will be man himself, whole and entire, body and soul, heart and conscience, mind and will."

I didn't know that the human person deserved to be preserved. I thought that the human person deserved the wrath of God but by His mercy He chose to preserve those who believed in and followed the teachings of Christ His son.

I also wasn't aware that human society deserved to be renewed. I thought that it didn't deserve anything but was offered renewal through Christ without having deserved it. (Still at the preface here).

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT THE SITUATION OF MEN IN THE MODERN WORLD

4. "To carry out such a task, the Church has always had the duty of scrutinizing the signs of the times and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel. Thus, in language intelligible to each generation, she can respond to the perennial questions which men ask about this present life and the life to come, and about the relationship of the one to the other. "

If the Church has always spoken in language intelligible to each generation, why did she suddenly change that policy for today's generation?

In Fact from chapters 4 through to 9, inclusive, in the introductory statement, one could be forgiven for thinking these chapters were co-authored by David Attenborough and a Buddhist monk.
Before anyone starts objecting, just read them.

PART I
THE CHURCH AND MAN'S CALLING

11. "What does the Church think of man? What needs to be recommended for the upbuilding of contemporary society? What is the ultimate significance of human activity throughout the world? People are waiting for an answer to these questions. From the answers it will be increasingly clear that the People of God and the human race in whose midst it lives render service to each other. Thus the mission of the Church will show its religious, and by that very fact, its supremely human character."

Ok. Got it.

12. "According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown."

Yes of course they should. I definitely needed to know the result of that poll.

13. "Although he was made by God in a state of holiness, from the very onset of his history man abused his liberty, at the urging of the Evil One. Man set himself against God and sought to attain his goal apart from God. Although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, but their senseless minds were darkened and they served the creature rather than the Creator.(3) What divine revelation makes known to us agrees with experience."

Would this be Adam and Eve he's talking about or is that too unmentionable?

13. "Indeed, man finds that by himself he is incapable of battling the assaults of evil successfully, so that everyone feels as though he is bound by chains."

Is this a true statement? In my experience (even among Catholics) the majority aren't aware of any battle gong on and definitely not every man feels as though he is bound by chains. Bound they are but many don't know or feel it,

15. "Man judges rightly that by his intellect he surpasses the material universe, for he shares in the light of the divine mind."

The Church judges rightly but I sincerely doubt that Man does. Many men think that the material universe is god.

16. "Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin."

Here we are assured that invincible ignorance is a done deal. Could it not have been said more accurately that, “Conscience frequently errs from non-willful ignorance without losing its dignity?”

17. "For God has willed that man remain "under the control of his own decisions,"(12) so that he can seek his Creator spontaneously, and come freely to utter and blissful perfection through loyalty to Him."

We have just witnessed the invincible ignorance theory being retracted.
I wonder how many chapters go by before it's reintroduced again.

19. "Some laud man so extravagantly that their faith in God lapses into a kind of anemia, though they seem more inclined to affirm man than to deny God."

And I'd hazard a guess that such documents as this have contributed to the very evil here being decried.

"To the extent that they neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion."

Then help us out here. Abolish the Novus Ordo Mass and start teaching with clarity again. We're all trying not to neglect our own training in the faith but you have concealed our best sources of knowledge of the faith under the “Super Dogma” documents of Vat II which no one can understand.

20. "Modern atheism often takes on a systematic expression which, in addition to other causes, stretches the desires for human independence to such a point that it poses difficulties against any kind of dependence on God."

Ah.... Is that all it does? It merely poses difficulties.
Nothing too serious going on then?

21. "In her loyal devotion to God and men, the Church has already repudiated(16) and cannot cease repudiating, sorrowfully but as firmly as possible, those poisonous doctrines and actions which contradict reason and the common experience of humanity, and dethrone man from his native excellence."

We know the Church has already repudiated those poisonous doctrines and no more so in the Syllabus of Errors where she done so severely.
Does her continued repudiation of these poisonous doctrines involve the kissing of the Koran and the drinking of chicken urine blessed by a witch doctor?
If not, explain why these things were done and documents such as this used for their justification.

"Still, she strives to detect in the atheistic mind the hidden causes for the denial of God; conscious of how weighty are the questions which atheism raises, and motivated by love for all men, she believes these questions ought to be examined seriously and more profoundly."

No need to bother. Didn't you know that St. Thomas Aquanis has already taken care of that magnificently?
How about not introducing a new Mass. That would help.

"The remedy which must be applied to atheism, however, is to be sought in a proper presentation of the Church's teaching as well as in the integral life of the Church and her members."

Hurray!.. Finally... At long last the penny has dropped.

22. "we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery."

Ooops!... Spoke too soon.
Has God not revealed this to us also and in fact hasn't kept it to Himself? Isn't it the case that all men are offered the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery by entering the One True Church of Christ?

Jehanne Sun Nov 11, 2012 11:08 pm

Columba,

Here's a Catholic Church in the Muslim state of Qatar:

http://www.rosarychurchqatar.com/

which is heavily restricted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar#Freedom_of_religion

the first Christian church to be built in the region in a long time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_of_Our_Lady_of_the_Rosary_%28Doha%29

Of course, the SSPX here recently stated:

This is because, at its core, the Muslim religion is against nature, a devilish invention made to entrap millions of souls through fear, threats and the destruction of reason, not unlike Communism.

http://www.sspx.org/pastors_corner/pastors_corner_september_2012.htm

What do you think would happen to the Our Lady of the Rosary Catholic Church in Qatar if Pope Benedict XVI would say something like the above? Don't you think that Lumen Gentium's reaffirmation of the decrees of the Council of Florence is enough?

tornpage Mon Nov 12, 2012 11:47 am

Columba,

I have come to the point we I don’t think there’s any profit in reading Gaudium et Spes or any Vatican II document critically. It was an ecumenical council called by a reigning successor of Peter and later ratified by the same. Nothing in it could possibly alter the indefectible Church or stop her from being what she is - the Bride of Christ.

The saving faith remains in Her, and she dispenses saving grace in her sacraments, and she always will - unless an external (call it Antichrist) force persecutes her to such an extent that the Holy Sacrifice will disappear from the earth for a time (as St. Alphonsus speculates).

Let us not be rebuked as Our Lord rebuked Peter:

Matthew 16:21-25

From that time Jesus began to shew to his disciples, that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the ancients and scribes and chief priests, and be put to death, and the third day rise again. [22] And Peter taking him, began to rebuke him, saying: Lord, be it far from thee, this shall not be unto thee. [23] Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men. [24] Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. [25] For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it.

[22] And Peter taking him: That is, taking him aside, out of a tender love, respect and zeal for his Lord and Master's honour, began to expostulate with him, as it were to rebuke him, saying, Lord, far be it from thee to suffer death; but the Lord said to Peter, ver. 23, Go behind me, Satan. These words may signify, Begone from me; but the holy Fathers expound them otherwise, that is, come after me, or follow me; and by these words the Lord would have Peter to follow him in his suffering, and not to oppose the divine will by contradiction; for the word satan means in Hebrew an adversary, or one that opposes.

Those guys, at VII, were the bishops of the Catholic Church; the popes who presided over the VII were successors of Peter; the words that came or come out of the mouth of JPII, BXVI, are words uttered by the successors of Peter.

Simply trust that, and leave the rest in the Lord’s hands.

Nothing said by any of the popes in VII, or commanded by the popes, requires you to believe or do anything that is contrary to the faith.

Let us follow Him in this suffering, and the Church in her passion, which He wills.

Maybe the Lord has finally broken me, but I’m done with this - taken apart the teachings of VII, the pope, trying to figure out if if the Church has “defected,” if the popes are “heretics” who should be abjured as not being true vicars of Christ.

Good luck with that, as Mike would say. Smile

We do have assurances that has not, will not, happen.

columba Mon Nov 12, 2012 8:35 pm

Jehanne wrote:Columba,

Here's a Catholic Church in the Muslim state of Qatar:

http://www.rosarychurchqatar.com/

which is heavily restricted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar#Freedom_of_religion

the first Christian church to be built in the region in a long time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_of_Our_Lady_of_the_Rosary_%28Doha%29

Of course, the SSPX here recently stated:

This is because, at its core, the Muslim religion is against nature, a devilish invention made to entrap millions of souls through fear, threats and the destruction of reason, not unlike Communism.

http://www.sspx.org/pastors_corner/pastors_corner_september_2012.htm

What do you think would happen to the Our Lady of the Rosary Catholic Church in Qatar if Pope Benedict XVI would say something like the above? Don't you think that Lumen Gentium's reaffirmation of the decrees of the Council of Florence is enough?

I do indeed think that the reaffirmation of the decrees of previous councils is a good thing, as long as those affirmations are not contradicted or nullified in the same dicument that reafirms them.

Jehanne, I accept your point about a pope employing prudence when chosing his words and I 100% agree. I for one will not be lobbying the pope for strong, inflammatory speaches against the Muslims while certain parts of the Church face a dangerous threat. But, for the sake of justice I would have expected a condemnation of those who carried out the murder of an ambassador and of three others in Libya. Instead we got a condemnation of those who made a video that alledgedly could have been construed as being offensive to Islam.

Yes indeed, don't unnecessarily infuriate the Muslims; I'm all for that; but on the other hand, don't tell them that their religion is great and "call upon the Church, in every situation, to persist in esteem for Muslims." As a Catholic I'm not for that at all. Fair's fair.

columba Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:30 pm

tornpage wrote:
Columba,

I have come to the point we I don’t think there’s any profit in reading Gaudium et Spes or any Vatican II document critically.

Mark, I've come to the point where I don’t think there’s any profit in reading Gaudium et Spes or any Vatican II document at all (never mind critically). Come to think of it, I could do my soul and peace-of-mind a great service by ignoring that council and everything proceeding from it. Almost 2,000 years of Catholicism had survived without it; maybe I can too. Smile

It was an ecumenical council called by a reigning successor of Peter and later ratified by the same. Nothing in it could possibly alter the indefectible Church or stop her from being what she is - the Bride of Christ.

Very true.
Even if a pope were to defect and with him the majority of his bishops, the Church/the Bride of Christ -even if a mere remnant- would not defect. The Lord is true to His word.

The saving faith remains in Her, and she dispenses saving grace in her sacraments, and she always will - unless an external (call it Antichrist) force persecutes her to such an extent that the Holy Sacrifice will disappear from the earth for a time (as St. Alphonsus speculates).

Mark, your very sure about the "external" part. I'm not so sure. Pope St Pius X was much more concerned about an internal force (as he would call it, "Her [the Church's] own members") being the gravest danger of all.

You quoted Matthew 16:21-25; The commentary states, "And Peter taking him: That is, taking him aside, out of a tender love, respect and zeal for his Lord and Master's honour, began to expostulate with him, as it were to rebuke him."

In all honesty I don't see this happening at present. I see a lack of tender love, respect and zeal for Our Lord since the council. If it were the case that the council -and everything since the council- were a product of misguided love and zeal for Our Lord then that would be (if not commendable) at least excusable.
The reality looks much more like the opposite (please don't have me quoting the witch doctor blessings and the Buddha statues again etc).
Matt 26:56 seems like a more realistic interpretatin of todays Peters, " Then all the disciples deserted him and ran away."

Those guys, at VII, were the bishops of the Catholic Church; the popes who presided over the VII were successors of Peter; the words that came or come out of the mouth of JPII, BXVI, are words uttered by the successors of Peter.

Simply trust that, and leave the rest in the Lord’s hands.

Your surity on this point Mark comes from the surity you attach to your understanding of what is meant by the Church's indefectablity. If I were as sure as you that the words comming out of the mouthes of the popes of Vat II were those of true successors of Peter, I would not be here. Or, if their words were so obviously in accord with the teachings of Christ and His holy apostles, I again, would not be here debating. IF i were to add more confussion I would include their actions.

Simply trusting! That's a big one.
It's a bit like the unfaithful husband saying to his suspicious wife, "Just trust me honey." That's all well and good if he show's that he's worthy of trust and has ceased his flirting with all those immoral woman out there. She would need to (and rightly so) see some signs that he's forsaken all others and sticking with her exclusively.

Just to trust that everything's under control at the Vatican, for me, means abandoning a certain portion of my God-given intellegence (I haven't very much and need to hold on doggedly to the little I have), and along with it, that certain intuition which I believe we all received by virtue of our Baptism.
Reason.. Yes, that's another one. Faith and reason are not opposed. I believe in Christ and His Church because it's reasonable to do so. I believe there's something seroiusly wrong at Rome because it's reasonable to to do so.

Nothing said by any of the popes in VII, or commanded by the popes, requires you to believe or do anything that is contrary to the faith.

That is true and it's a real blessing for a coward like me. I am not forced to take up a position of rejection of the papacy while it remains this way. Maybe that's where the Lord's promises concerning His Church are being witnessed in action. That's why I won't jump off this fence I've been on for quite some time now. If rejection of the Novus Ordo Missae constitutes an act of schism, then I quite possibly might have unwittingly already fallen off. But what am I to do? If I go back to the NO I will certainly (without any doubt) do time in jail.

Let us follow Him in this suffering, and the Church in her passion, which He wills.

If I were doing my duty properly, as a good Catholic, I would be easing the suffering of Our Lord and His Church, like the blessed Virgin and St. John, and weeping unceasingly as He's crucified again by those who claim to be His friends.

Maybe the Lord has finally broken me, but I’m done with this

Sure you are... A guy called Jeremiah once said that too. Smile

We do have assurances that has not, will not, happen.

Yep... and you'll confirm this for me next month, next year. Won't you friend? Smile

Jehanne Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:54 pm

columba wrote:I do indeed think that the reaffirmation of the decrees of previous councils is a good thing, as long as those affirmations are not contradicted or nullified in the same dicument that reafirms them.

If such was, indeed, the case at the Second Vatican Council, why take it seriously at all? For, if the Council contradicted Tradition then it only ended-up contradicting itself, and if that is the case, we have better things to do with our time than sitting around talking about it.

As for the Pope, "salute the position" and not necessarily "the person." For, the guarantee of the Holy Spirit is with respect to the former and not necessarily the latter:

Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

Never forget "the condoms, the condoms...", which means that if the Pope would lose his faith is absolutely no excuse for you to lose yours. Just remember, in the End, the Truth will prevail!

MRyan Sat Dec 01, 2012 8:25 pm

"LISTEN CAREFULLY, my son and daughter, to the master's instructions, and attend to them with the ear of your heart.” (St. Benedict)

columba wrote:
This is a follow-on from the previous thread where I still have a duty to respond to Mike concerning what I perceive to be errors contained in Gaudium et Spes and refuted in The Syllabus of Errors.

Before answering Mike, I wanted to have a thorough re-read through the document but in the process I couldn't help but become slightly depressed. Although it contains irrefutable Catholic teaching, it also contains so much banality that it becomes quite tedious to continue beyond a couple of chapters at a time.

It would seem the critics of VCII (and in this instance, of Gaudium et Spes) cannot make up their mind with which club to beat it. While we often hear complaints of the revolutionsary type “novelties”, “renovations”, “innovations” and the ticking “time-bombs” in these magisterial documents, Columba goes in the opposite direction by telling us of its “banality”, meaning that it lacks originality, freshness, or novelty; it is, in other words “trite” or commonplace, which is why Columba finds it so “tedious” to read – it puts him to sleep, while at the same time making him entirely “depressed” (the Irish are particularly susceptible to melancholy).

With so much banal (uninspiring, predictable, flat, insipid and tedious) writing, the ususal accusations of being new, novel, or original have gone by the wayside, and if someone is looking for Columba to identify the errors in faith or morals, one will have a long wait, unless the definition of error is “banal”.

columba wrote:
Starting from the preface, I jotted down the thoughts that were going through my mind as I read certain passages. I got as far as the end of chapter 1.
I will continue the rest of the document without comment (I'll get through it much quicker that way) and make personal notes on those points I consider erroneous.

So what it is the point of this exercise if it is NOT to identify error until some future date, seeing that Columba cannot identify any errors in Chapter 1?

Are we to be subject to Columba’s insulting sarcasm that is, allegedly, in no way reflective of his “more serene and non-confrontational disposition” with which he says he takes up this serious study? Why, yes we are, for he cannot help himself, he tells us, he’s Irish, and he smells a “cover up”. After all, if his daddy would not let him get away with his youthful indiscretions involving deceptions with the truth (“covering up”), Columba is not going to let the Church get away with it, either.

columba wrote:
Hopefully you'll forgive the sarcastic tone that comes across in my comments. The sarcasm doesn't accurately reflect the more serene and non-confrontational disposition present while writing. I guess it's a trait inherited from my father when confronted with less than clear explanations. He took it that this signified the covering up of something, and he was always right on the money when drilling me and getting nothing but vague answers. (I was in my teens at the time).

Peter Pan meets Gaudium et Spes!

columba wrote:
Gaudium et Spes

PREFACE

2. "Hence this Second Vatican Council, having probed more profoundly into the mystery of the Church,.."

Has the Second Vatican Council really probed more profoundly into the mystery of the Church? More profoundly than which other council? Have other councils ignored the profound mysteries of the Church and failed to probe those mysteries?

I can't see how the Second Vatican Council can hold claim to such an achievement and even if the answers to the above questions is Yes, then the Second Vatican Council definitely failed to make known in any comprehensible way to the faithful the results of this profound probing of the mysteries of the Church . The statement is misleading and I'm only at the preface.

This is actually quite incredible, but does serve to demonstrate the warped and darkened mindset of someone who dares to chastise the Church for daring to suggest that it has “probed more profoundly into the mystery of the Church”, and from this Columba infers at least two fallacies, that VCII claims for itself a “probing” that was absent in other councils (or he implies that the Church has no right to probe any further into such mysteries in the first place), and that the documents of VCII “definitely failed to make known in any comprehensible way to the faithful the results of this profound probing of the mysteries of the Church”, when we could list one example after another where VCII “makes known” in a comprehensible way certain teachings and practices of the Church (without denying there exists some ambiguity with certain teachings and disciplines). In fact, in certain respects, VCII finished what VCI only began, particularly, for example, with respect to the divine Constitution of the Church (e.g., collegiality).

In fact, I would say that the answer is a definite “yes”, for no other council of the Church was as comprehensive or as ambitious in probing more deeply into the life of the Church and the issues facing the Church and man in the age in which they live. Under the heading “The Magisterium of Vatican II”, Vincenzo Carbone, in his article Vatican Council II: Light for the Church and for the Modern World, writes:

Vatican II established a point of reference in the life of the daily Church … It took important stands on subjects and it offered the Church rich documents of doctrine and of action: four constitutions (one liturgical, two dogmatic, and one pastoral), nine decrees and three declarations.

A link connects these documents, which form an organic "body" of doctrine and of law for the renewal of the Church.

The four Constitutions allow for the exact interpretation of the decree and the declarations, which are applied to various sectors of the life of the Church the teachings of the Council.

It's a selective and partial reading, limited to one or the other text, it does not consent an evaluation of all the councilar teaching, or of a false interpretation and it is the reason for wrong applications.

The fundamental thought, which pervades all the documents, is the renewal, with the strongest and most live imitation of Christ, who is the center of the Church and livens everyone with his spirit.

Vatican II is defined as the Council "of the Church," "of Christ," "of man." In truth, these definitions mean the emphasis given to various themes; they must be understood not in an exclusive sense, but integrally. In fact, the relationship between ecclesiology, Christology and anthropology of Vatican II is very strong.

The central theme is the Church. From this, the Council explored the mystery, outlined the divine design of the constitution, deepened the nature, illustrated the mission, re-evaluated the vocation of the laity and their part in the mission of the People of God (17). (http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01051997_p-21_en.html)

So yes, Columba, when we consider the narrower focus and intention of other Councils in combating specific errors or in defining certain dogmas, VCII was indeed much more ambitious and comprehensive in the scope and breadth of her teachings and, “having probed more profoundly into the mystery of the Church”, the “Council explored the mystery, outlined the divine design of the constitution, deepened the nature, illustrated the mission, [and, among other things] re-evaluated the vocation of the laity and their part in the mission of the People of God.”

You say “the Second Vatican Council definitely failed to make known in any comprehensible way to the faithful the results of this profound probing of the mysteries of the Church”, and I say you have never engaged in a serious study or critique of the Council documents. Your sarcastic bromides and gross characterizations are nothing more than warmed-over rad-trad talking points, and do not in any way reflect the thoughtful introspection, the filial respect and the humble approach befitting of any serious study of the Magisterial documents of an Ecumenical Vatican Council.

columba wrote:
3. "For the human person deserves to be preserved; human society deserves to be renewed. Hence the focal point of our total presentation will be man himself, whole and entire, body and soul, heart and conscience, mind and will."

I didn't know that the human person deserved to be preserved. I thought that the human person deserved the wrath of God but by His mercy He chose to preserve those who believed in and followed the teachings of Christ His son.

Again, what are we to make of such ignorant and gross characterizations? The human person does NOT need to be preserved, seeing that he was created in God’s image and redeemed by the humanity of Christ? No, says, Columba, man was created for Hell and deserves only the wrath of God for having been born into original sin (well, except for the chosen elect).

And note well how Columba simply ignores the context of the cited passage, with the passage immediately preceeding saying “The council brings to mankind light kindled from the Gospel, and puts at its disposal those saving resources which the Church herself, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, receives from her Founder” and the passage which follows, saying:

Therefore, this sacred synod, proclaiming the noble destiny of man and championing the godlike seed which has been sown in him, offers to mankind the honest assistance of the Church in fostering that brotherhood of all men which corresponds to this destiny of theirs. Inspired by no earthly ambition, the Church seeks but a solitary goal: to carry forward the work of Christ under the lead of the befriending Spirit. And Christ entered this world to give witness to the truth, to rescue and not to sit in judgment, to serve and not to be served.[2]

In other words, the Council declares that the “human person deserved to be preserved” precisely because, created in His image and likeness, and already united to Him (in a non-salvific way) by virtue of the Incarnation, he deserves to be “rescued” and elevated into divine son-ship by our Lord (who entered the world and became man for just such a purpose), and it is the Church, through her “saving resources”, who carries forward the salvific work of Christ.

Lest Columba have one of his catatonic seizures at the very thought of being “united to Christ by virtue of the Incarnation”, St. Cyril provided the following relevant explanation:

According to Cyril, by virtue of the Logos assuming flesh into the unity of His divine person, a natural solidarity between Christ and mankind is said to be forged, quite independently from the sacramental order… Cyril demonstrates this teaching of man’s (non-salvific) fleshly solidarity with Christ through the Incarnation alone by recourse to the common Patristic theme of the admirabile commercium, the “wonderful exchange” of human and divine attributes: God, whilst remaining God, humbles himself to share in our humanity so that we, whilst remaining human, may be raised to share in His divinity; for “though he was rich, for your sake he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich” (2 Cor 8:9). Such an exchange, argues Cyril, can only occur on the basis of a physical, or natural, solidarity between God and man, where He who becomes consubstantial with man according to His humanity remains substantially God, and is therefore able to restore and deify fallen humanity through a created communication of the divine nature. For “in appropriating what is our own, He gives us in return what is His”. (Timothy Kelly, "Christ and the Church: Duo in Carne Una, A study of the union of Christ and the members of His Mystical Body from the vantage point of its Bodiliness", http://ethesis.unifr.ch/theses/KellyT.pdf?file=KellyT.pdf)

Columba’s response? “[O]ne could be forgiven for thinking these chapters were co-authored by David Attenborough and a Buddhist monk. Before anyone starts objecting, just read them.”

Yes, please do read them, and read also the concluding section 10 which places sections 4-9 (detailing the “the outstanding problems of our time”) and the entire Introductory Statement into context by offering mankind the only solution:

The Church firmly believes that Christ, who died and was raised up for all,[2] can through His Spirit offer man the light and the strength to measure up to his supreme destiny. Nor has any other name under the heaven been given to man by which it is fitting for him to be saved.[3] She likewise holds that in her most benign Lord and Master can be found the key, the focal point and the goal of man, as well as of all human history. The Church also maintains that beneath all changes there are many realities which do not change and which have their ultimate foundation in Christ, Who is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever.[4] Hence under the light of Christ, the image of the unseen God, the firstborn of every creature,[5] the council wishes to speak to all men in order to shed light on the mystery of man and to cooperate in finding the solution to the outstanding problems of our time.

The obfuscating “logic” permeating Columba’s arrogant “analysis” continues unabated with this gem:

I also wasn't aware that human society deserved to be renewed. I thought that it didn't deserve anything but was offered renewal through Christ without having deserved it. (Still at the preface here).

Context, context, context, for there is no true “renewal” without the light and truth of Christ, which the Church “brings to mankind [said] (and the society in which he lives) light kindled from the Gospel, and puts at its disposal those saving resources which the Church herself, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, receives from her Founder”; but you are too blind in your petty bias to see what the Council is actually saying. You pick out one sentence, spin it, and simply remove it from its greater content – so what else is new?

The rest of your “analysis”, Columba, is just more of the same, and I am done wasting my time exposing your shallow thinking, poor ecclesiology, misplaced sarcasm and petty whining. You are not fit to undertake a serious critique of Gaudium et Spes, or any other Council document, and only bring discredit upon yourself when you post such inanities.

But, when you are ready to identify the alleged error(s) in faith proposed by the Magisterium in Gaudium et Spes, we’re still waiting.

Funny that you just can't seem to get around to it, always mañana.

columba wrote:I've come to the point where I don’t think there’s any profit in reading Gaudium et Spes or any Vatican II document at all (never mind critically).

I agree, for you are not capable of reading it "critically".

Jehanne Sat Dec 01, 2012 11:11 pm

Mike,

The Second Vatican Council is wholly orthodox, all of it without any exceptions whatsoever. Even Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre signed all sixteen documents of Vatican II.

So, what's the problem, then? Here it is -- Nearly everyone reads Vatican II as having an "optimistic view" of the eternal salvation of every human being. Consider what Saint Thomas Aquinas said on the fate of individuals who commit suicide:

"It is altogether unlawful to kill oneself, for three reasons. First, because everything naturally loves itself, the result being that everything naturally keeps itself in being, and resists corruptions so far as it can. Wherefore suicide is contrary to the inclination of nature, and to charity whereby every man should love himself. Hence suicide is always a mortal sin, as being contrary to the natural law and to charity. Secondly, because every part, as such, belongs to the whole. Now every man is part of the community, and so, as such, he belongs to the community. Hence by killing himself he injures the community, as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. v, 11). Thirdly, because life is God's gift to man, and is subject to His power, Who kills and makes to live. Hence whoever takes his own life, sins against God, even as he who kills another's slave, sins against that slave's master, and as he who usurps to himself judgment of a matter not entrusted to him. For it belongs to God alone to pronounce sentence of death and life, according to Deuteronomy 32:39, "I will kill and I will make to live." (Summa Theologica II II, q.64, a.5)

And, there is no time for repentance according to the Church's principle theologian:

Man is made master of himself through his free-will: wherefore he can lawfully dispose of himself as to those matters which pertain to this life which is ruled by man's free-will. But the passage from this life to another and happier one is subject not to man's free-will but to the power of God. Hence it is not lawful for man to take his own life that he may pass to a happier life, nor that he may escape any unhappiness whatsoever of the present life, because the ultimate and most fearsome evil of this life is death, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. iii, 6). Therefore to bring death upon oneself in order to escape the other afflictions of this life, is to adopt a greater evil in order to avoid a lesser. On like manner it is unlawful to take one's own life on account of one's having committed a sin, both because by so doing one does oneself a very great injury, by depriving oneself of the time needful for repentance, and because it is not lawful to slay an evildoer except by the sentence of the public authority. Again it is unlawful for a woman to kill herself lest she be violated, because she ought not to commit on herself the very great sin of suicide, to avoid the lesser sir; of another. For she commits no sin in being violated by force, provided she does not consent, since "without consent of the mind there is no stain on the body," as the Blessed Lucy declared. Now it is evident that fornication and adultery are less grievous sins than taking a man's, especially one's own, life: since the latter is most grievous, because one injures oneself, to whom one owes the greatest love. Moreover it is most dangerous since no time is left wherein to expiate it by repentance. Again it is not lawful for anyone to take his own life for fear he should consent to sin, because "evil must not be done that good may come" ( Romans 3, 8 ) or that evil may be avoided especially if the evil be of small account and an uncertain event, for it is uncertain whether one will at some future time consent to a sin, since God is able to deliver man from sin under any temptation whatever. (Summa Theologica II II, q.64, a.5, ad 3)

However, the current Catechism teaches:

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

I am sure that Saint Thomas would agree with the above, but does such happen? If so, how often? Most of the time? Some of the time? Hardly ever? Of course, nearly all Catholics, if you would ask them, would say, "All of the time, unless the person in question was a mass murderer, child molester, etc."

Does such a view, however, represent reality? The Protestant Tim LaHaye wrote a book over 30 years ago called "Life in the Afterlife: What Really Happens After Death?" I remember reading his book back in the 1980s when I was a young man. Mr. LaHaye recounts the story of a person who died and had a NDE ("Near-death experience"). He claimed to have met Christ who showed him Heaven and Hell; what impressed him most about the later were all the individuals who had committed suicide. Consigned to the same chamber in Hell, they kept repeating over and over, "I'm sorry, I'm sorry..."

A sad scene, no doubt, if it was (and is) true, and if its true, then Gaudium et Spes can not and will not change it, any more than Gaudium et Spes could cause the Earth to disappear. If Hell truly exists and if individuals are there at this very moment, including those who committed suicide as well as little children who perished without sacramental Baptism, then that is reality and absolutely nothing which Gaudium et Spes states or any future Church Council could state will change that reality one iota.

So, as you can see; it's not what Gaudium et Spes said but what it did not say that is the issue here. And, that issue is that there are large groups of people who go to Hell for having not embraced the One True Faith and/or for having not submitted themselves to the One True Church, or who have violated the natural and moral law, or who have held the Sacraments of the Catholic Church in contempt or have neglected those divine graces through indifference.

That's the issue here, which Gaudium et Spes did not state, that is, there is an eternal Hell where people are right now and where they will be tomorrow morning, and indeed, forever and forever. And, going to Hell is not just a "possibility" but a certainty for those who not only die outside the Catholic Church but those who die within her but in mortal sin.

MRyan Sun Dec 02, 2012 4:42 pm

Gaudium et Spes, no. 27:

Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat laborers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honor due to the Creator

The CCC:

Suicide

2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.

2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.

2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.

Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

"From the Code of Canon Law and Commentary*

Regarding “Those to Whom Ecclesiastical Funeral Rites Are Denied”:

Canon 1184 –
§1. Unless they have given some signs of repentance before their death, the following are to be deprived of ecclesiastical funeral rites:
1º notorious apostates, heretics and schismatics;
2º persons who had chosen the cremation of their own bodies for reasons opposed
to the Christian faith;
3º other manifest sinners for whom ecclesiastical funeral rites cannot be granted
without public scandal to the faithful;
§2. If some doubt should arise, the local ordinary is to be consulted; and his judgment is to be followed.

Commentary: The preceding canon listed those to whom ecclesiastical funeral rites could be conceded, while this canon speaks of those to whom they are to be denied. The penalty of denial of Christian burial has largely been dropped from this Code. However, this canon indicates the few times when burial is to be denied. It reflects the committee’s effort to respond to requests that the law offer a listing of sins warranting denial of burial even if such a listing were not a taxative one. (Comm 12 (1980), 355-356) In applying this canon, one should follow canon 18 which states that laws which restrict rights should always be interpreted strictly….

…Certain categories of persons mentioned in the former law are not explicitly included in the prohibition of this canon, e.g., members of forbidden societies (CIC 1240, §1, 1º), those who deliberately commit suicide (CIC 1240, §1, 3º), those who are killed in a duel or die from a duel-related wound (CIC 1240, §1, 4º). The only situation about which there was any discussion was the case of a member of a forbidden society….

* Coriden, James A., Green, Thomas J., and Heintschel, Donald E., editors, The Code of Canon Law, A Text and Commentary, Commissioned by the Canon Law Society of America, Paulist Press, New York/Mahwah, 1985.

Jehanne, one of my brothers committed suicide. He received a funeral Mass and Christian burial. Is there something you would like to share with me that I do not already know?

My brother may very well be lost, but not a day goes by that I do not pray for the repose of his soul. I will not give up hope, and I will not despair. I can only appeal to God's mercy and "temporary insanity". My father prayed that none of his would be lost ... that is my prayer as well.

By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

Amen.

MRyan Sun Dec 02, 2012 5:24 pm

MRyan wrote:
columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
3. "For the human person deserves to be preserved; human society deserves to be renewed. Hence the focal point of our total presentation will be man himself, whole and entire, body and soul, heart and conscience, mind and will."
I didn't know that the human person deserved to be preserved. I thought that the human person deserved the wrath of God but by His mercy He chose to preserve those who believed in and followed the teachings of Christ His son.
Again, what are we to make of such ignorant and gross characterizations? ...

Columba,

By "ignorant", I do mean to suggest that you are "stupid", but only that your characterization of GS reflects an ignorance that typically manifests itself in "shallow thinking", "poor ecclesiology" and empty sarcasm. Your twisting of the words seems almost deliberate, but I know you are not hindered by an "ignorance" that will not allow you to recognize critical distinctions, context and intention (the will of the Pope in remaining true to received tradition and to the faith), even if you find Gaudium et Spes and the whole of VCII distasteful.

This does not mean that there are not real difficulties in interpretation, but only that our approach should be constructive, and not one that tears down or mocks.

Yes, my "ignorant" comment was an "ad hominem", but sometimes they can serve a useful purpose ... though in this case it was unnecessary.

Consider this an apology, but please note that I find your sarcastic and seemingly thoughtless responses/characterizations insulting, though I know that is not your intention.

MRyan Sun Dec 02, 2012 5:54 pm

HELL

FROM THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him (1Jn 3:14-15). Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren (Mt. 25: 31-46). To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna," of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost Mt 5:22,29;10:28;13:42,50; Mk 9:43-48) Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather ... all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire," (Mt 13:41-42) and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!" (Mt 25:41)

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." (Council of Trent) The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few" (Mt 7:13-14).

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; (Council of Trent- 1547) for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance": (2 Pet 3:9).

Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where "men will weep and gnash their teeth(Mt 22:13).

MRyan Sun Dec 02, 2012 6:45 pm

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
FIDEI DEPOSITUM

ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

PREPARED FOLLOWING THE SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

JOHN PAUL, BISHOP
SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD
FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY

To my Venerable Brothers the cardinals, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and to all the People of God.

GUARDING THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH IS THE MISSION WHICH THE LORD ENTRUSTED TO HIS CHURCH, and which she fulfills in every age. The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, which was opened 30 years ago by my predecessor Pope John XXIII, of happy memory, had as its intention and purpose to highlight the Church's apostolic and pastoral mission, and by making the truth of the Gospel shine forth to lead all people to seek and receive Christ's love which surpasses all knowledge (cf. Eph 3:19).

The principal task entrusted to the Council by Pope John XXIII was to guard and present better the precious deposit of Christian doctrine in order to make it more accessible to the Christian faithful and to all people of good will. For this reason the Council was not first of all to condemn the errors of the time, but above all to strive calmly to show the strength and beauty of the doctrine of the faith. "Illumined by the light of this Council", the Pope said, "the Church. . . will become greater in spiritual riches and gaining the strength of new energies therefrom, she will look to the future without fear. . . Our duty is to dedicate ourselves with an earnest will and without fear to that work which our era demands of us, thus pursuing the path which the Church has followed for 20 centuries."

With the help of God, the Council Fathers in four years of work were able to produce a considerable number of doctrinal statements and pastoral norms which were presented to the whole Church. There the Pastors and Christian faithful find directives for that "renewal of thought, action, practices and moral virtue, of joy and hope, which was the very purpose of the Council".

After its conclusion, the Council did not cease to inspire the Church's life. In 1985 I was able to assert, "For me, then - who had the special grace of participating in it and actively collaborating in its development - Vatican II has always been, and especially during these years of my Pontificate, the constant reference point of my every pastoral action, in the conscious commitment to implement its directives concretely and faithfully at the level of each Church and the whole Church."

In this spirit, on 25 January 1985, I convoked an extraordinary assembly of the Synod of Bishops for the 20th anniversary of the close of the Council. The purpose of this assembly was to celebrate the graces and spiritual fruits of Vatican II, to study its teaching in greater depth in order that all the Christian faithful might better adhere to it, and to promote knowledge and application of it.

On that occasion the Synod Fathers stated: "Very many have expressed the desire that a catechism or compendium of all Catholic doctrine regarding both faith and morals be composed, that it might be, as it were, a point of reference for the catechisms or compendiums that are prepared in various regions. The presentation of doctrine must be biblical and liturgical. It must be sound doctrine suited to the present life of Christians." After the Synod ended, I made this desire my own, considering it as "fully responding to a real need of the universal Church and of the particular Churches".

For this reason we thank the Lord wholeheartedly on this day when we can offer the entire Church this "reference text" entitled the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for a catechesis renewed at the living sources of the faith!

Following the renewal of the Liturgy and the new codification of the canon law of the Latin Church and that of the Oriental Catholic Churches, this catechism will make a very important contribution to that work of renewing the whole life of the Church, as desired and begun by the Second Vatican Council.

1. The Process and Spirit of Drafting the Text

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the result of very extensive collaboration; it was prepared over six years of intense work done in a spirit of complete openness and fervent zeal.

In 1986, I entrusted a commission of twelve Cardinals and Bishops, chaired by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, with the task of preparing a draft of the catechism requested by the Synod Fathers. An editorial committee of seven diocesan Bishops, experts in theology and catechesis, assisted the commission in its work.

The commission, charged with giving directives and with overseeing the course of the work, attentively followed all the stages in editing the nine subsequent drafts. The editorial committee, for its part, assumed responsibility for writing the text, making the emendations requested by the commission and examining the observations of numerous theologians, exegetes and catechists, and above all, of the Bishops of the whole world, in order to produce a better text. In the committee various opinions were compared with great profit, and thus a richer text has resulted whose unity and coherence are assured.

The project was the object of extensive consultation among all Catholic Bishops, their Episcopal Conferences or Synods, and theological and catechetical institutes. As a whole, it received a broadly favorable acceptance on the part of the Episcopate. It can be said that this Catechism is the result of the collaboration of the whole Episcopate of the Catholic Church, who generously accepted my invitation to share responsibility for an enterprise which directly concerns the life of the Church. This response elicits in me a deep feeling of joy, because the harmony of so many voices truly expresses what could be called the "symphony" of the faith. The achievement of this Catechism thus reflects the collegial nature of the Episcopate; it testifies to the Church's catholicity.

2. Arrangement of the Material

A catechism should faithfully and systematically present the teaching of Sacred Scripture, the living Tradition in the Church and the authentic Magisterium, as well as the spiritual heritage of the Fathers, Doctors and saints of the Church, to allow for a better knowledge of the Christian mystery and for enlivening the faith of the People of God. It should take into account the doctrinal statements which down the centuries the Holy Spirit has intimated to his Church. It should also help to illumine with the light of faith the new situations and problems which had not yet emerged in the past.

This catechism will thus contain both the new and the old (cf. Mt 13:52), because the faith is always the same yet the source of ever new light.

To respond to this twofold demand, the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the one hand repeats the "old", traditional order already followed by the Catechism of St. Pius V, arranging the material in four parts: the Creed, the Sacred Liturgy, with pride of place given to the sacraments, the Christian way of life, explained beginning with the Ten Commandments, and finally, Christian prayer. At the same time, however, the contents are often presented in a "new" way in order to respond to the questions of our age.

The four parts are related one to another: the Christian mystery is the object of faith (first part); it is celebrated and communicated in liturgical actions (second part); it is present to enlighten and sustain the children of God in their actions (third part); it is the basis for our prayer, the privileged expression of which is the Our Father, and it represents the object of our supplication, our praise and our intercession (fourth part).

The Liturgy itself is prayer; the confession of faith finds its proper place in the celebration of worship. Grace, the fruit of the sacraments, is the irreplaceable condition for Christian living, just as participation in the Church's Liturgy requires faith. If faith is not expressed in works, it is dead (cf. Jas 2:14-16) and cannot bear fruit unto eternal life. In reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church we can perceive the wonderful unity of the mystery of God, his saving will, as well as the central place of Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, sent by the Father, made man in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit, to be our Savior. Having died and risen, Christ is always present in his Church, especially in the sacraments; he is the source of our faith, the model of Christian conduct and the Teacher of our prayer.

3. The Doctrinal Value of the Text

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!

The approval and publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church represent a service which the Successor of Peter wishes to offer to the Holy Catholic Church, to all the particular Churches in peace and communion with the Apostolic See: the service, that is, of supporting and confirming the faith of all the Lord Jesus' disciples (cf. Lk 22:32 as well as of strengthening the bonds of unity in the same apostolic faith. Therefore, I ask all the Church's Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Eph 3:eight). It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the catholic faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.

This catechism is not intended to replace the local catechisms duly approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, the diocesan Bishops and the Episcopal Conferences, especially if they have been approved by the Apostolic See. It is meant to encourage and assist in the writing of new local catechisms, which take into account various situations and cultures, while carefully preserving the unity of faith and fidelity to catholic doctrine.

At the conclusion of this document presenting the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I beseech the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Incarnate Word and Mother of the Church, to support with her powerful intercession the catechetical work of the entire Church on every level, at this time when she is called to a new effort of evangelization. May the light of the true faith free humanity from the ignorance and slavery of sin in order to lead it to the only freedom worthy of the name (cf. Jn 8:32): that of life in Jesus Christ under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, here below and in the Kingdom of heaven, in the fullness of the blessed vision of God face to face (cf. 1 Cor 13:12; 2 Cor 5:6-eight)!

Given 11 October 1992, the thirtieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, in the fourteenth year of my Pontificate.

Joannes Paulus II

MRyan Sun Dec 02, 2012 6:58 pm

MRyan wrote:
Columba,

By "ignorant", I do mean to suggest that you are "stupid", ....

Boy, I really stepped on that one. Let's try that again:

By "ignorant", I do NOT mean to suggest that you are "stupid" ...

MRyan Sun Dec 02, 2012 7:50 pm

Jehanne,

I hope you have realized by now my purpose in posting excerpts from Gaudium et Spes (and its mention of the grievous sin of voluntary suicide, which is placed in the same category of offenses as homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia), the CCC (to include its entire section on “Hell”) and Canon Law, as well as the “APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION FIDEI DEPOSITUM ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH”.

They must be read and understood as a seamless whole.

You implied that because Gaudium et Spes “did not say … there is an eternal Hell where people are right now and where they will be tomorrow morning, and indeed, forever and forever” that it somehow suggested that “going to Hell is not just a ‘possibility’ but a certainty for those who not only die outside the Catholic Church but those who die within her but in mortal sin” is no longer true, and I hope you can see that you have no real grounds for stating or suggesting this.

Your real beef appears to be with the all too positive nature of Gaudium et Spes (and the other Vatican documents), as confirmed by Pope JPII in his Apostolic Constitution, Fidei Depositism, where he said:

The principal task entrusted to the Council by Pope John XXIII was to guard and present better the precious deposit of Christian doctrine in order to make it more accessible to the Christian faithful and to all people of good will. For this reason the Council was not first of all to condemn the errors of the time, but above all to strive calmly to show the strength and beauty of the doctrine of the faith. "Illumined by the light of this Council", the Pope said, "the Church. . . will become greater in spiritual riches and gaining the strength of new energies therefrom, she will look to the future without fear. . . Our duty is to dedicate ourselves with an earnest will and without fear to that work which our era demands of us, thus pursuing the path which the Church has followed for 20 centuries."

However, I would caution you against saying that VCII did not confirm the very real threat and consequence of being separated from God by sin and final impenitence -- and being cast into the eternal fires “where 'there will be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth'”, as the following Magisterial/concilar texts affirm:

"For a monumental struggle against the powers of darkness pervades the whole history of man. The battle was joined from the very origins of the world and will continue until the last day, as the Lord as attested. Caught in this conflict, man is obliged to wrestle constantly if he is to cling to what is good. Nor can he achieve his own integrity without valiant efforts and the help of God's grace." (Gaudium et Spes, no. 37 (Vatican II, 1962-1965): Walter M. Abbott, S.J., The Documents of Vatican II, p.235)

"For He sent His Son, clothed in our flesh, in order that through this Son He might snatch men from the power of darkness and of Satan (cf. Col. 1:13; Acts 10:38) and that in this Son He might reconcile the world to Himself (cf. 2Cor. 5:19)." (Ad Gentes, no. 3 (Vatican II, 1962-1965): Walter M. Abbott, S.J., The Documents of Vatican II, p.586)

"Since we know not the day nor the hour, on our Lord's advice we must constantly stand guard. Thus when we have finished the one and only course of our earthly life (cf. Heb. 9:27) we may merit to enter into the marriage feast with Him and to be numbered among the blessed (cf. Mt. 25:31-46). Thus we may not be condemned to go into eternal fire (cf. Mt. 25:41) like the wicked and slothful servant (cf. Mt. 25:26), into the exterior darkness where 'there will be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth' (Mt. 22:13; 25:30)." (Lumen Gentium, no. 48 (Vatican II, 1962-1965): Walter M. Abbott, S.J., The Documents of Vatican II, p.80)

If you wish to argue that there exists an all too prevailing mindset that diminishes the reality and eventuality of hell for the “many” who choose the broad road to eternal destruction, you’ll get no argument from me, but let’s place the blame where it belongs, on poor catechetics (at every level), as the Holy Father recognizes, and is enlisting our help, in this, the “Year of Faith”, in correcting this severe problem.

I'll bet you would make a good R.E. teacher - and adolescent boys need male authority figures and role models.

MRyan Sun Dec 02, 2012 8:31 pm

Tornpage wrote:

Those guys, at VII, were the bishops of the Catholic Church; the popes who presided over the VII were successors of Peter; the words that came or come out of the mouth of JPII, BXVI, are words uttered by the successors of Peter.

Simply trust that, and leave the rest in the Lord’s hands.

Nothing said by any of the popes in VII, or commanded by the popes, requires you to believe or do anything that is contrary to the faith.

Let us follow Him in this suffering, and the Church in her passion, which He wills.

What he said!

Mark, yes, let us follow Him, always in union with Peter … and what a pleasure and privilege it is to do so.

Jehanne Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:25 pm

MRyan wrote:I'll bet you would make a good R.E. teacher - and adolescent boys need male authority figures and role models.

Believe me, Mike, no one would tolerate me. I would be dismissed after my very first class, if not before, and would only be "hired" if no one else could be found to volunteer for the job.

I am so very sorry to hear about the loss of your brother. Of course, I speak with a "forked tongue" with respect to those who have taken their own lives. On the one hand, I will certainly pray for the eternal salvation of your brother's immortal soul; on the other hand, I am not going to be like my very own mother who told my kids that "everyone goes to Heaven." Unfortunately, that attitude is widespread within today's Church, and has been shown with the murderers at Columbine, some individuals do base their actions a prior upon false theology (in their case, "OSAS"). Ultimately, of course, the One and Triune God is the sole arbiter and judge of one's immortal soul.

In the town where I live, one parish only has sacramental confession scheduled on one weekend per month for 30 minutes. No one hardly ever shows-up because few believe that they need ever go, because with the "Hallmark Jesus," why bother? Of course, "the majority" may be right in this situation; on the other hand, the One and Triune God, a Perfect Being, may, indeed, send large numbers of human beings to eternal Hell. The Church and Tradition, for many centuries (indeed, from its very beginnings), was "conservative" and "erred on the side of caution." Confessing one's most private sins to a complete stranger may be difficult and somewhat socially awkward, however, it will not harm one's chances of eternal life even if the "Hallmark Jesus" is the one whom we are dealing with.

I don't think that your brother ended his life without any hope but his eternal fate and that of countless others is simply unknown to me; on this question, I am very much an agnostic. Father John Zuhlsdorf, to his credit (I can't say that I agree with everything that he writes), asked his readers to contemplate what "the first 10 seconds of Hell is like." Good advice.

My response to those who end their lives without the Sacraments of the Catholic Church is, "I don't know". It seems to me to be the most charitable and honest response which I can give.

George Brenner Sun Dec 02, 2012 10:05 pm

We have a duty and responsibility to defend and fight for our Faith. The problem has never been the orthodoxy of Vatican II or the Novus Ordo Mass. The problem has always been the disasterous implementations along with the lack of safeguards, clear teaching, reverence and discipline in executing the written desires, degrees, cannon law and Papal instructions of VII in clear continuity with past councils. Way too much liberal thinking and modernism overcame those at ALL levels who were of good will. The fight continues. We must be oh so careful not to condemn or judge rashly those with whom we have no knowledge of doing harm to our Church. There are many brave and loyal Catholics who fight to set a good example and do preserve the reverence of our Faith. There are many many more who we will never know who lead lives that are most pleasing to God. I pray for the help of the known and mostly unknown in my life to help me, being the lowly sinner that I am. Mike, I also had a brother in law who committed suicide many many years ago. This remains painful. My future posts will be primarily dedicated, God willing to the specifics of praising those who defend the faith and calling to task those who have or are hurting or destroying our Faith. Jehanne, I heard many great homilies and sermons when I lived in Des Moines from 1995 to 1997. Jehanne you are ' starting ' to somewhat resemble in a very humble way Saint Augustine. I pray that I live long enough to learn from you as I have learned from Mike.

"Nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good." - Pope Leo XIII (Sapientae Christianae, No. 14, encyclical, 1890)

and as taken from:

Posted in World Catholic News, on October 26th, 2012
Vatican II betrayed by breakdown of church discipline, cardinal tells Synod
BY FRANCIS X. ROCCA
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — Abandonment of internal church discipline over the past half century has undermined the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, said the American cardinal who heads the Vatican’s supreme court.

Cardinal Raymond L. Burke, prefect of the Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature and a former archbishop of St. Louis, made his remarks Oct. 23 in a written submission to the afternoon session of the world Synod of Bishops on the new evangelization.

The cardinal said that a secular version of “antinomianism” — the belief that grace exempts Christians from obedience to moral law — is “among the most serious wounds of society today,” responsible for the legalization of “intrinsically evil” actions such as abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, euthanasia and same-sex marriage, and for the denial of conscience exemptions and other infringements of religious liberty.

“This antinomianism embedded in civil society has unfortunately infected post-council ecclesial life,” he said.

“Excitement following the council, linked to the establishment of a new church which teaches freedom and love, has strongly encouraged an attitude of indifference toward church discipline, if not even hostility,” he said. “The reforms of ecclesial life which were hoped for by the council fathers were, therefore, in a certain sense, hindered if not betrayed.”

The cardinal’s remarks to the synod echoed a much longer address he delivered Aug. 30 in Nairobi, to the Canon Law Society of Kenya.

In that speech, the cardinal linked a breakdown in internal discipline with theologians’ interpretations of Vatican II as a radical break with church tradition — an approach that he said encouraged contempt for canon law.

Cardinal Burke told the Nairobi gathering that ignorance or deliberate neglect of canon law in the years since Vatican II had “reaped gravely harmful fruits in the church,” contributing to the clerical sex abuse scandal, abuses of the liturgy, “vacuous and confused, if not erroneous” religious instruction, lack of discipline among priests and seminarians, rejection of tradition by members of religious orders, disrespect for the church’s teaching on marriage and a “loss of the identity of charitable, educational and health care institutions bearing the name Catholic.”

Cardinal Burke told the Vatican synod, which has been dedicated to revival of the faith in traditionally Christian but increasingly secular societies, that the new evangelization calls for restoration of the “disciplinary tradition of the church and respect of the law in the church.”

“How indeed will we be able to witness our faith in the world,” he asked the other bishops, “if we ignore or neglect the demands of justice within the church?”

JMJ,

George

MRyan Mon Dec 03, 2012 12:57 pm

A few weeks ago I was driving home from my parish Church when I noticed that the SUV in front of me was sporting an “I Believe” bumper sticker that also contains an image of the Eucharist in a monstrance (popular with Perpetual Adoration adorers at my Church). Also prominently on display was a Masonic sticker featuring the letter “G” in the center of a square and compass. I was tempted to follow the vehicle to its final destination in order to ask the driver if he/she was aware that membership in Masonic associations is still strictly forbidden (a serious sin), and that those who persist, after becoming aware of Church teaching (and duly admonished), are not to receive Holy Communion since all such associations are objectively sinful.

Though a fraternal correction is in order, I decided that following the SUV to its final destination was probably not the most prudent way of handling this, so I made a mental note to talk to the driver should I spot the vehicle again in our Church parking lot (better yet, perhaps I should prepare an anonymous note and leave the envelope on his windshield when the opportunity arises).

This incidence came to mind upon reading George’s post containing the erudite words of “Cardinal Raymond L. Burke, prefect of the Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature and a former archbishop of St. Louis”.

The Cardinal nailed it, and he has never been afraid to speak the truth, as his classic canonical defense of his policy forbidding the Eucharist to “Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” (can. 915). Bookmark, for future reference, http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm, as well as Dr. Edward Peter’s presentation, which is a bit more technical (http://www.canonlaw.info/a_denialofeucharist.htm).

In fact, it was his paper on canon 915 that reminded me of the Church’s teaching on Masonic associations, where (then) Archbishop Burke explained:

On November 26, 1983, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a declaration regarding Masonic associations, with the approval of Pope John Paul II who ordered its publication. The declaration responded to the question whether the judgment of the Church had changed regarding Masonic associations, since they are not expressly mentioned in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, as they were in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The response given in the declaration contains four points:

1) the Church's negative judgment regarding Masonic associations remains unchanged because the principles of the associations are irreconcilable with the Church's teaching;

2) membership, therefore, in them remains forbidden;

3) members of the faithful who join Masonic associations fall into serious sin; and

4) “they may not approach for Holy Communion”. [50] Making reference to the Congregation's declaration of February 17, 1981, the declaration further indicates that local ecclesiastical authorities do not enjoy the faculty “of offering a judgment regarding the nature of Masonic associations, which would involve the derogation of the above-stated judgment”. [51]

That a parishioner publicly displays his Catholic belief in the Real Presence, while displaying at the same time his association or affinity with a Masonic organization (giving public scandal), is precisely the sad state of affairs Cardinal Burke was referring to when he said “that ignorance or deliberate neglect of canon law in the years since Vatican II had ‘reaped gravely harmful fruits in the church,’ contributing to … ‘vacuous and confused, if not erroneous’” religious instruction, lack of discipline among priests and seminarians, [and] rejection of tradition by members of religious orders”; and that “This antinomianism [‘the belief that grace exempts Christians from obedience to moral law’] embedded in civil society has unfortunately infected post-council ecclesial life,”.

As Canon 21 of the Council of Trent declared in Session Six:

"If anyone shall say that Christ Jesus was given of God unto men as a Redeemer in whom they should trust, and not also as a legislator whom they should obey; let him be an anathema."

Cardinal Burke "asked the other bishops":

“How indeed will we be able to witness our faith in the world ... if we ignore or neglect the demands of justice within the church?”

Indeed, which is why "Cardinal Burke told the Vatican synod, which has been dedicated to revival of the faith in traditionally Christian but increasingly secular societies, that the new evangelization calls for restoration of the 'disciplinary tradition of the church and respect of the law in the church.'”

George Brenner Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:53 pm

Mike said:

Indeed, which is why "Cardinal Burke told the Vatican synod, which has been dedicated to revival of the faith in traditionally Christian but increasingly secular societies, that the new evangelization calls for restoration of the 'disciplinary tradition of the church and respect of the law in the church.'”

.... and I believe this is why my patience and anger at times ebbs over the line. I believe that silence is a sin as it pertains to " thy will be done" and "in what I have failed to do" There is one fact I believe that all of us can agree on and that is that none of us on this forum is luke warm. We must make sure that we constantly pray for each other with all things being said.

JMJ,

George

MRyan Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:44 pm

I think we need to examine how, in consideration of our respective stations, talents, time and responsibilities, we can assist the Church by doing what we can “to witness our faith in the world” in this, the “Year of Faith” and the new evangelization.

I gave a little nudge to Jehanne, for example, by saying that he would make a good R.E. teacher, and, while I understand his reluctance and his belief that he would not last through even one class, and also being cognizant of the deplorable state of his local Church (if a useful barometer is how often the sacrament of Reconciliation is offered and attended), then all the more reason in my mind for giving it a shot. For if not Jehanne and others like him, than whom? “Whom shall I send” is not just a rhetorical question asked by our Lord in some schmaltzy liturgical song called “Here I am, Lord”, it is a direct challenge by our Lord to each of us, and is taken from various Scripture passages, to include Isaiah 6: 5-8:

And I said: Woe is me, because I have held my peace; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people that hath unclean lips, and I have seen with my eyes the King the Lord of hosts. And one of the seraphims flew to me, and in his hand was a live coal, which he had taken with the tongs off the altar. And he touched my mouth, and said: Behold this hath touched thy lips, and thy iniquities shall be taken away, and thy sin shall be cleansed. And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying: Whom shall I send? and who shall go for us? And I said: Lo, here am I, send me.

[Note the Trinitarian "us"] And yet, for the hardened of heart who will not hear the truth, our Lord, speaking through the angel, said,

Go, and thou shalt say to this people: Hearing, hear, and understand not: and see the vision, and know it not. Blind the heart of this people, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes: lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted and I heal them. (Isaiah 6: 9-10)

The chastisement we have justly suffered after the Council was clearly foretold:

They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that the LORD Almighty had sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets. So the LORD Almighty was very angry. (Zechariah 7:12)

But so too was the solution for those of the Faithful whose heart’s may be healed, their ears lightened and their eyes opened that they may be “be converted and I heal them”:

Psalm 51:10 Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me.

Jeremiah 24:7 I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the LORD. They will be my people, and I will be their God, for they will return to me with all their heart.

Ezekiel 11:19 I will give them an undivided heart and put a new spirit in them; I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh.

“Whom shall I send?”

I, the Lord of snow and rain,
I have borne my people’s pain.
I have wept for love of them.
They turn away.

I will break their hearts of stone,
Give them hearts for love alone.
I will speak my words to them.
Whom shall I send?

Here I am, Lord.
Is it I, Lord?
I have heard you calling in the night.
I will go, Lord, if you lead me.
I will hold your people in my heart.

How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, "Your God reigns!" (Isaiah 52:7)

And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” (Romans 10:15)

MRyan Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:45 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:I'll bet you would make a good R.E. teacher - and adolescent boys need male authority figures and role models.

Believe me, Mike, no one would tolerate me. I would be dismissed after my very first class, if not before, and would only be "hired" if no one else could be found to volunteer for the job.

Only if you imposed your "opinions" on your students in opposition to written diocesan guidelines (and this became known) which entails nothing more than remaining faithful to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I KNOW you are capable of teaching "as it is written".

If you cannot teach CCC #1261, for example, without embellishing it with your own unsubstantiated opinion (rendering it practically meaningless), then perhaps you are right and the classroom is not for you.

Mostly likely, you will be allowed the freedom to supplement your lesson plans with solid orthodox teachings, meaning you won't necessarily have to use the diocesan supplied teacher's guide as your only template - for that's all it is - a guide, which can be deficient in many areas, as you can well imagine. So long as you remain within the stated objectives of the diocesan curriculum, you'll do fine - and I know you can.

Having said that, not being a member of your local parish would most likely serve as a disqualifying impediment, and if that bridge is already burned, then this option for ministry is probably not open to you (and only you can answer that question).

Jehanne, you have a passion for writing and explaining the faith, and though I do not agree with much of what you write on your blog (sigh), I have seen a good deal of progression in your thinking on this forum as you consider various positions and make adjustment when necessary. However, in the classroom, there is no room or necessity for controversial "opinions", they are way too complicated (and unnecessary, as in counterproductive) for the undeveloped minds you would be instructing.

You would be starting at ground zero - literally, and must adapt accordingly in order to reach the empty vessels sitting in front of you - a challenge, but a rewarding one if we take advantage of it.

Anyway, give it some thought. Of course, Mark and George may beat you to it - they would shine in the classroom!

Jehanne wrote:
I am so very sorry to hear about the loss of your brother.

That's OK, it was 29 years ago this Dec. 29, and thank you for remembering him in your prayers. He was all of 18 (my other brother was 19 when he was killed in a motor accident six years prior to this).

My four sisters and mother are stuck with me!

George Brenner Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:46 pm

Excellent posts Mike,

God Bless you and grant you wisdom to continue to help those who need assistance.

JMJ,

George

MRyan Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:29 pm

Thank you, George, and same to you.

MRyan Wed Dec 05, 2012 7:46 pm

OK, I said I would not "waste" my time, but we might as well finish this by picking-up where I left off (I have a wicked cold, and I could use some additional penance):

columba wrote:
13. "Indeed, man finds that by himself he is incapable of battling the assaults of evil successfully, so that everyone feels as though he is bound by chains."
Is this a true statement? In my experience (even among Catholics) the majority aren't aware of any battle gong on and definitely not every man feels as though he is bound by chains. Bound they are but many don't know or feel it,

No, Columba, you tell us, is the statement an objective truth, or isn’t it? Every man knows that by himself he is incapable of battling the assaults of evil (just look around). The preceding sentence tells us precisely what GS is referring to: “As a result, all of human life, whether individual or collective, shows itself to be a dramatic struggle between good and evil, between light and darkness.”

Only a fool would argue that in human life there is not a constant battle between good and evil, “whether individual or collective”. And you question this truth (whether the Church actually believes it) because it is your “experience (even among Catholics)” that “the majority aren't aware of any battle gong on”? Of course “the majority” are aware, but many shield themselves from this reality by ignoring it and filling their minds with the “reality” of “Jersey Shore”, “The Real Housewives of [name the city]” and all such mind-numbing trash.

Don’t confuse man’s coping mechanisms and nihilism with objective truth itself, which no man can deny without looking entirely foolish. Not even an atheist can deny this constant struggle between light and darkness that takes place in humanity, whether in the individual or in the collective, even if he considers what is “evil”, “good” and truth itself to be entirely subjective.

columba wrote:
15. "Man judges rightly that by his intellect he surpasses the material universe, for he shares in the light of the divine mind."
The Church judges rightly but I sincerely doubt that Man does. Many men think that the material universe is god.

It doesn’t matter if “Many men think that the material universe is god”, for even these recognize the objective truth that says “Man … by his intellect … surpasses the material universe”, for the material universe does not have a “mind” that can reason and discern the truth. In other words, as GS just said in # 14 by way of transition:

[Man] regards himself as superior to bodily concerns, and as more than a speck of nature or a nameless constituent of the city of man. For by his interior qualities he outstrips the whole sum of mere things. He plunges into the depths of reality whenever he enters into his own heart; God, Who probes the heart, awaits him there; there he discerns his proper destiny beneath the eyes of God. Thus, when he recognizes in himself a spiritual and immortal soul, he is not being mocked by a fantasy born only of physical or social influences, but is rather laying hold of the proper truth of the matter.

Man knows instinctively and by natural reason the truth of the first part (i.e., that “Man judges rightly that by his intellect he surpasses the material universe”), but only by grace can he discern his “proper destiny beneath the eyes of God”.

Your “objection”, Columba, is a straw-man.

columba wrote:
16. "Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin."
Here we are assured that invincible ignorance is a done deal. Could it not have been said more accurately that, “Conscience frequently errs from non-willful ignorance without losing its dignity?”

A “done deal” - what are you talking about? We are assured that “invincible ignorance” exists by the very fact that "Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity”; meaning of course that a conscience that willfully errs is not inculpable, and GS then confirms this truth by explicitly stating that ignorance is NOT invincible (inculpable) when the conscience loses it dignity by caring “little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin."

In other words, “Conscience frequently errs from non-willful ignorance without losing its dignity”. Does GS have to draw you a picture? Can’t you put two sentences together without twisting the words of the first, thus rendering the words of the last entirely meaningless or contradictory? Why do you take such careless liberty?

columba wrote:
17. "For God has willed that man remain "under the control of his own decisions,"(12) so that he can seek his Creator spontaneously, and come freely to utter and blissful perfection through loyalty to Him."
We have just witnessed the invincible ignorance theory being retracted. I wonder how many chapters go by before it's reintroduced again.

What? No, rather, we have just witnessed the hi-jacking of one sentence out of an entire paragraph and using it to make a baseless accusation. In no way is this statement a “retraction” of “invincible ignorance”. In fact the words in quotations are taken directly from Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 15:14, which says:

“God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel.”

Paragraph 17 deserves to be read in its entirety, and not in solitary sound bites:

17. Only in freedom can man direct himself toward goodness. Our contemporaries make much of this freedom and pursue it eagerly; and rightly to be sure. Often however they foster it perversely as a license for doing whatever pleases them, even if it is evil. For its part, authentic freedom is an exceptional sign of the divine image within man. For God has willed that man remain "under the control of his own decisions,"(12) so that he can seek his Creator spontaneously, and come freely to utter and blissful perfection through loyalty to Him. Hence man's dignity demands that he act according to a knowing and free choice that is personally motivated and prompted from within, not under blind internal impulse nor by mere external pressure. Man achieves such dignity when, emancipating himself from all captivity to passion, he pursues his goal in a spontaneous choice of what is good, and procures for himself through effective and skilful action, apt helps to that end. Since man's freedom has been damaged by sin, only by the aid of God's grace can he bring such a relationship with God into full flower. Before the judgement seat of God each man must render an account of his own life, whether he has done good or evil.(13)

Context, what a beautiful thing. Once again, Columba, you should be embarrassed by such a superficial “analysis”.

columba wrote:
19. "Some laud man so extravagantly that their faith in God lapses into a kind of anemia, though they seem more inclined to affirm man than to deny God."
And I'd hazard a guess that such documents as this have contributed to the very evil here being decried.

Considering the depth, accuracy, logic and scholarship of our “analysis” to date, of course you would.

columba wrote:
"To the extent that they neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion."

Then help us out here. Abolish the Novus Ordo Mass and start teaching with clarity again. We're all trying not to neglect our own training in the faith but you have concealed our best sources of knowledge of the faith under the “Super Dogma” documents of Vat II which no one can understand.

“Abolish the Novus Ordo” – just pull the string and listen to the prerecorded mantra.

Let’s not talk about “reform” and reality, let’s pretend that a return to the 1962 Missal (oh wait, not even that “corruption” is good enough for certain trad “purists”) or to the Mass of Pope Pius XII (oh wait, that’s where the “corruption” of liturgical reform began, with his experiments in inculturation and in particular, with the reforms to Holy Week and Easter). Well, OK, how about a return to the pre-Pope Pius XII “mass of all time” (to include the Sunday “low mass of all time”), where one can ignore, as did Cardinal Spellman in the US, Pope Pius X’s call for “active participation” in the Liturgy which would mean reform both to the Sunday Low Mass (which should be sung, with appropriate responses by the laity), as well as to the “High Mass” which in many areas had become a musical extravaganza (the height of musical entertainment) complete with the “masses” of Mozart and Bach, which could draw the Mass celebration out to two and three hours.

This was more a full-fledged “concert” than a Mass. As recordings and concerts go, and even for certain liturgical venues, they are beautiful, but for the celebration of the Mass for the rank and file Faithful, they are entirely out of place, just as what often passes for modern “Liturgy” and its banal music is entirely out of place.

No, what Pope St. Pius X called for was “active participation”, by which he meant a return to simple chant and to the responses (sung, preferably) of the laity. The “Gloria” sung in Latin by the entire congregation is, for example, what Pope Pius X meant by “active participation”, and what we should be striving for today (with other like reforms) in our Liturgy as we restore a sense of the sacred and a Mass worthy of proper worship, and worthy of the faithful who are an integral part of the Liturgy. It is true that Pope Pius X did not think that Mass should be said in the vernacular, but it cannot be denied that the Church has a long history of allowing such Masses, particularly in mission lands.

At any rate, this is not to excuse abuses, or to pretend that some changes were not the result of disobedient practices where the Pope finally gave in to the abuses by making them the norm, but to place such matters into proper perspective as we work with the Pope towards a greater reform, the true reform called for by VCII.

Columba wrote:

… and start teaching with clarity again. We're all trying not to neglect our own training in the faith but you have concealed our best sources of knowledge of the faith under the “Super Dogma” documents of Vat II which no one can understand.

Really? Pope BXVI condemned the notion that VCII was some sort of “Super Dogma” that marked for the Church a break with its past and a brand new beginning. But then again, what does he know, right, Columba? And if your rendition of the “truth” is what VCII is “concealing”, I would propose to you that the Church has never proposed such doctrines as you understand them, at least with respect to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and your accusations of error against the Council. You do not even understand Session Six, Chapter 4 of the Council of Trent, or, for that matter, the dogmatic Bull "Cantate Domino". Having said that, there is a grain of truth in what you say, for Pope BXVI is calling for the same thing, especially with respect to reforms in discipline (to include Liturgy).

However, when you say, “no one can understand” the documents of VCII, I would say that you are not capable of understanding even the majority of that which is clearly spoken. However, no one is denying that much of what is taught is pastoral in nature, and delves into prudential matters and “magisterial acts”, which, “while resting on immutable principles or linked to infallible truths of faith yet commingled with certain ‘contingent’ or ‘conjectural’ elements” which “ may be subject to review and are ‘reformable’ in light of changed circumstances[17] or even subsequent correction on account of new research or some other prudential error.” (http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.html).

In other words, no one is denying that much of what is taught by VCII is difficult to understand, precisely because of the contingent reformable aspects of certain doctrines and disciplines (e.g., religious liberty), and by the very fact that its non-confrontational approach (avoiding condemnations of error) lends itself to misunderstanding (the lack of condemnations can be misconstrued as approval of error). I am simply saying that there is right way and a wrong way to approach these issues, and that your way is the wrong way.

columba wrote:
20. "Modern atheism often takes on a systematic expression which, in addition to other causes, stretches the desires for human independence to such a point that it poses difficulties against any kind of dependence on God."

Ah.... Is that all it does? It merely poses difficulties. Nothing too serious going on then?

Rubbish. In no fewer than 12 paragraphs GS addresses the specific sin and error of atheism by addressing its causes, its nature and it cure. I will not bother citing all the relevant passages that refute Columba’s caustic, immature and thoughtless accusation, readers can discern for themselves the truth of the matter by reading sections 19-22.

In fact, I know for a fact that no other Council in the history of the Church has ever gone into such detail in describing the serious malady known as “atheism”, and in addressing it head-on, for the simple reason that in no other age has atheism become so rampant and bold (oh, let's blame the Council!).

columba wrote:
21. "In her loyal devotion to God and men, the Church has already repudiated(16) and cannot cease repudiating, sorrowfully but as firmly as possible, those poisonous doctrines and actions which contradict reason and the common experience of humanity, and dethrone man from his native excellence."
We know the Church has already repudiated those poisonous doctrines and no more so in the Syllabus of Errors where she done so severely.

So which is it? First, Columba tells us that the only objection GS has with atheism is that it “stretches the desires for human independence to such a point that it poses difficulties against any kind of dependence on God." And now, Columba complains that GS, in “repudiating those poisonous doctrines” such as “atheism” (the specific poison being addressed), is only repeating what “the Syllabus of Errors” condemned “where she [did] so severely”. And yet, Columba does not cite even one condemned error of the Syllabus which “severely” repudiates the same “poisonous doctrines and actions” being addressed by GS “which contradict reason and the common experience of humanity, and dethrone man from his native excellence."

Not one. If columba was paying attention to the context (not likely), he would have noticed that footnote 16 references 1 Cor. 7:31 (“And they that use this world, as if they used it not: for the fashion of this world passeth away”) and St. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, V, 36, PG, VIII, 1221, both of which refer to the end times, and both of which express the universal longing for peace and life, and freedom from sin and death (and the "poison" of such sins as atheism). This theme is picked-up again in GS #39 which references the same two citations:

We do not know the time for the consummation of the earth and of humanity,(cf. Acts 1:7) nor do we know how all things will be transformed. As deformed by sin, the shape of this world will pass away;(cf. 1 Cor. 7:31; St. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, V, 36, PG, VIII, 1221) but we are taught that God is preparing a new dwelling place and a new earth where justice will abide,(cf. 2 Cor. 5:2; 2 Pet. 3:13) and whose blessedness will answer and surpass all the longings for peace which spring up in the human heart.(cf. 1 Cor. 2:9; Apoc. 21:4-5) Then, with death overcome, the (children) of God will be raised up in Christ, and what was sown in weakness and corruption will be invested with incorruptibility.(cf. 1 Cor. 15:42 and 53) Enduring with charity and its fruits,(cf. 1 Cor. 13:8; 3:14) all that creation(cf. Rom. 8:19-21) which God made on (humankind’s) account will be unchained from the bondage of vanity.

Columba wrote:

Does her continued repudiation of these poisonous doctrines involve the kissing of the Koran and the drinking of chicken urine blessed by a witch doctor? If not, explain why these things were done and documents such as this used for their justification.

Please demonstrate where Pope JPII used for justification Gaudium et Spes “and documents such as these”, in his “kissing of the Koran”. Furthermore, you say the same magisterial documents are used to justify “the drinking of chicken urine blessed by a witch doctor”.

Prove it. Yeah, mañana.

columba wrote:
"Still, she strives to detect in the atheistic mind the hidden causes for the denial of God; conscious of how weighty are the questions which atheism raises, and motivated by love for all men, she believes these questions ought to be examined seriously and more profoundly."
No need to bother. Didn't you know that St. Thomas Aquanis has already taken care of that magnificently? How about not introducing a new Mass. That would help.

Of what use is the Church if St. Thomas has already answered everything. Yes, let’s point atheists to the Summa, which only affirms what GS is saying. How about reforming the Mass as the Council intended?

columba wrote:
"The remedy which must be applied to atheism, however, is to be sought in a proper presentation of the Church's teaching as well as in the integral life of the Church and her members."
Hurray!.. Finally... At long last the penny has dropped.

The “penny” dropped a long time ago. Columba acts like this is some new revelation to GS; but then again, he is incapable of understanding what he is reading.

columba wrote:
22. "we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery."
Ooops!... Spoke too soon. Has God not revealed this to us also and in fact hasn't kept it to Himself? Isn't it the case that all men are offered the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery by entering the One True Church of Christ?

No, not all men are offered the possibility of external incorporation, but every man is offered the possibility of being united to Him (and His Body) in faith and charity (even “in a manner known only to God”), and this is precisely what the Church teaches, and has always taught. If you deny this, go ahead and demonstrate where the Church has ever defined or definitively taught that external incorporation in the Church through the bonds of sacramental Baptism, subjection to the Roman Pontiff and the profession of the Catholic Faith are the only means by which one can be translated in Christ to a state of justification and transformed to a son of God and heir to the Kingdom.

Good luck with that, and please, I am not interested in your worthless unsubstantiated “opinions” that run counter to the entire tradition and teachings of the Church.

Without charity, external membership is absolutely useless, and with the squandering of such graces and powers, the result is a deeper pit in hell.

Thank you columba, for this little romp down sarcastic lane, it was quite an adventure. But, given your limitations, do us all a favor and stay away from the documents of VCII.

George Brenner Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:21 pm

It could simply be that the pain of seeing the Catholic Church we love so much go through such difficult and painful times for decades and decades can force some with myself included to lash out and attack the very essence of what we desire to help and be part of the solution. Being a witness to so many souls not being properly nourished with truth and clarity has probably taken a terrible toll. After all we are talking about eternity and not the loss of the big game. This has been a matter of spiritual life and death with the stakes amounting to everything in that souls are on the line. People are dying constantly. It is of no small wander that passion can be mis- directed and our anger cloud proper discernment. I and We must ask ourselves what can we do to help our Holy Father, our neighbor and our Church to restore discipline, reverence and clarity in teaching the Faith according to the will of God. We will not be judged on the strength or validity of our complaints but on our efforts to help and be part of the cure.

JMJ,

George

MRyan Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:53 pm

George Brenner wrote: It could simply be that the pain of seeing the Catholic Church we love so much go through such difficult and painful times for decades and decades can force some with myself included to lash out and attack the very essence of what we desire to help and be part of the solution.

Perhaps so, but these are not isolated instances where one can be excused for blowing off a bit of steam, these are systematic, continuous and snarky broadsides against the Church -- daring to pose as charitable "analysis". There comes a time to cease and desist from lashing the Church with baseless accusations of "error" in doctrine when one is ill-equipped to defend such spurious accusations.

George Brenner wrote: I and We must ask ourselves what can we do to help our Holy Father, our neighbor and our Church to restore discipline, reverence and clarity in teaching the Faith according to the will of God. We will not be judged on the strength or validity of our complaints but on our efforts to help and be part of the cure.

Indeed.

columba Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:05 am

Before I say anything let me acknowledge and apologize for the frustration I must be causing by my unexplained, mid-thread absences. There's good reasons for this but I would waste too much time going into them now.

MRyan wrote:
It would seem the critics of VCII (and in this instance, of Gaudium et Spes) cannot make up their mind with which club to beat it. While we often hear complaints of the revolutionsary type “novelties”, “renovations”, “innovations” and the ticking “time-bombs” in these magisterial documents, Columba goes in the opposite direction by telling us of its “banality”, meaning that it lacks originality, freshness, or novelty; it is, in other words “trite” or commonplace, which is why Columba finds it so “tedious” to read – it puts him to sleep, while at the same time making him entirely “depressed” (the Irish are particularly susceptible to melancholy).

Notice I used the words “slightly depressed.” Being a true Irishman I find it hard to become “ENTIRELY” depressed. Unlike the 11% of Americans who regularly take antidepressants, the percentage in Ireland is less than 2%. Thought I would share that with you Mike just so we can remain factual. Very Happy

I used the word “banal” to indicate: wearisome, cliche-ridden, mind-numbing, uninspiring etc, and that was as much to do with the tone as the content.
I was referring to the effect the document produced in me (another fact btw) . I wasn't speaking of the effect it may have on others but I would guess that if they found it exciting or faith-inspiring their expectations of the Church in her teaching capacity (and life in general) must have been dealt a severe blow somewhere along the way. Either that or the antidepressants really do work.

columba wrote:
Starting from the preface, I jotted down the thoughts that were going through my mind as I read certain passages. I got as far as the end of chapter 1.
I will continue the rest of the document without comment (I'll get through it much quicker that way) and make personal notes on those points I consider erroneous.

MRyan wrote:
So what it is the point of this exercise if it is NOT to identify error until some future date, seeing that Columba cannot identify any errors in Chapter 1?

The point of the exercise was to vent some frustration and give you something to heat your blood while unfortunately and unintentionally having you wait for a full response to your challenge.

MRyan wrote:
Are we to be subject to Columba’s insulting sarcasm that is, allegedly, in no way reflective of his “more serene and non-confrontational disposition” with which he says he takes up this serious study? Why, yes we are, for he cannot help himself, he tells us, he’s Irish, and he smells a “cover up”. After all, if his daddy would not let him get away with his youthful indiscretions involving deceptions with the truth (“covering up”), Columba is not going to let the Church get away with it, either.

Exactly. Vagueness produces suspicion regardless of the source from which it originates. Don't you sometimes accuse me of being evasive and consider this a suspiciously deceptive tactic? Likewise, I at times accuse you of the same. At least here we can call each other out and demand a fuller explanation of our words. No such luxury regarding the documents of Vat II. The SSPX have been asking for such for many years without success. In fact their whole gripe is that the vagueness of the documents refuses to be even discussed never mind addressed. In that respect I am in complete agreement with the SSPX and totally suspicious of the reasons why no clarification of doctrinal issues can be granted the time of day.

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
Hopefully you'll forgive the sarcastic tone that comes across in my comments. The sarcasm doesn't accurately reflect the more serene and non-confrontational disposition present while writing. I guess it's a trait inherited from my father when confronted with less than clear explanations. He took it that this signified the covering up of something, and he was always right on the money when drilling me and getting nothing but vague answers. (I was in my teens at the time).

Peter Pan meets Gaudium et Spes!

Yep... And the application of this principle holds good regardless.

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
2. "Hence this Second Vatican Council, having probed more profoundly into the mystery of the Church,.."

Has the Second Vatican Council really probed more profoundly into the mystery of the Church? More profoundly than which other council? Have other councils ignored the profound mysteries of the Church and failed to probe those mysteries?

I can't see how the Second Vatican Council can hold claim to such an achievement and even if the answers to the above questions is Yes, then the Second Vatican Council definitely failed to make known in any comprehensible way to the faithful the results of this profound probing of the mysteries of the Church . The statement is misleading and I'm only at the preface.

This is actually quite incredible, but does serve to demonstrate the warped and darkened mindset of someone who dares to chastise the Church for daring to suggest that it has “probed more profoundly into the mystery of the Church”, and from this Columba infers at least two fallacies, that VCII claims for itself a “probing” that was absent in other councils (or he implies that the Church has no right to probe any further into such mysteries in the first place),

Really? Where did I infer that "VCII claims for itself a “probing” that was absent in other councils?" I don't remember doing that nor implying "that the Church has no right to probe any further into such mysteries in the first place."
What I did infer was that VCII didn't achieve what it set out to do with regard to the results of this "deep probing." Totally incomprehensible waffle was what resulted from this "deep probing" and continues to the present day. (Check out the latest installment of the Jesus of Nazereth trilogy to see first-hand the results of this deep probing).

MRyan wrote:
and that the documents of VCII “definitely failed to make known in any comprehensible way to the faithful the results of this profound probing of the mysteries of the Church”, when we could list one example after another where VCII “makes known” in a comprehensible way certain teachings and practices of the Church (without denying there exists some ambiguity with certain teachings and disciplines).

Please list even one such teaching that remains consistant throughout the documents of VCII.

MRyan wrote:
In fact, in certain respects, VCII finished what VCI only began, particularly, for example, with respect to the divine Constitution of the Church (e.g., collegiality).

Really Mike?
Do you think VCI would have ended with a Church that subsists within a church and, considering VCI's insistance on the absolute primacy of Peter do you think she would have then made a U turn and included all the bishops, stripping the Pope of his absolute primacy already declared earlier? To see VCII as some kind of a follow-on from VCI rather than a totally new council with totally new and different ideas and ideals does not tie in with reality.

MRyan wrote:

[Quote from, Vatican Council II: Light for the Church and for the Modern World] writes: Vatican II established a point of reference in the life of the daily Church … It took important stands on subjects and it offered the Church rich documents of doctrine and of action: four constitutions (one liturgical, two dogmatic, and one pastoral), nine decrees and three declarations.

Regarding the two dogmatic documents; despite the non-dogmatic (non-dictrinal) nature of the Council, it is surprizing to see it contains dogmatic documents at all. However, even these "dogmatic" documents are absent the dogmatic language the Church usually employs in such matters. Dei Verbum for example ignores its own teaching regarding the handing on and the guarding of the Deposit of Faith when this is no longer a stated requirement of nor bound by any oath for one who takes up the office of pope.

continued:
A link connects these documents, which form an organic "body" of doctrine and of law for the renewal of the Church.

For sure, the VCII documents are linked and the link is ambiguity. Its the link with the past that's in question. We are assured that this link exists but we're not permitted to ask where. The SSPX asked and were told that it can't be discussed.

Can anyone show me (prior to VCII) where the Church needed to constantly harp on about a "connecting link" from one council to another?
The reason why we hear so much about the "link" that we're constantly reminded exists, is because no one can see it. If it were visible it wouldn't need to be mentioned. It's precisely because of its absence that we need to be told ad nauseum that it really exists; a bit like the elusive WMD's of the Bush and Blair era.

To be honest. I don't even look for the missing link anymore. In fact I think they'll find the Darwinian one before they find the pre-post Vat II one.

continued:

Vatican II is defined as the Council "of the Church," "of Christ," "of man." In truth, these definitions mean the emphasis given to various themes; they must be understood not in an exclusive sense, but integrally. In fact, the relationship between ecclesiology, Christology and anthropology of Vatican II is very strong.

This is the problem. One can state as fact that "the relationship between ecclesiology, Christology and anthropology of Vatican II is very strong." and another can state as fact that it isn't. I'm of the second variety. The anthropological focus is by far the predomonant one allowing for a distorted view of Christ and His Church to take root within and without the Church to the extent where Man almost becomes co-equal with God. Each man becomes inseparable from God whether in astate of grace or not.
This is the "ecclesiology, Christology and anthropology of Vatican II" and we must understand it the way the Curch understands it. Below we are assured how the Church understands it.

[Redemptor hominis 13]
"Accordingly, what is in question here is man in all his truth, in his full magnitude. We are not dealing with the "abstract" man, but the real, "concrete", "historical" man. We are dealing with "each" man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united himself for ever through this mystery"

continued:
The central theme is the Church. From this, the Council explored the mystery, outlined the divine design of the constitution, deepened the nature, illustrated the mission, re-evaluated the vocation of the laity and their part in the mission of the People of God (17).

See I just can't take this distortion of the facts and this rose-tinted denial of reality.
The Council most certainly did not deepen the nature; it changed the nature. It didn't illustrate the mission; it abandoned the mission. It didn't re-evaluate the vocation of the laity; it destroyed the vocation of the laity by destroying first the dignity and separateness of the priesthood.

MRyan wrote:
So yes, Columba, when we consider the narrower focus and intention of other Councils in combating specific errors or in defining certain dogmas, VCII was indeed much more ambitious and comprehensive in the scope and breadth of her teachings..

Mike, you are saying that because the other Councils focused on combating specific errors they somehow failed to be comprehensive in scope. Can a council not do both together? Would Trent be included here?
Did VCII combat any errors at all or were there no errors to combat since 1962? Was the new error now traditionalism to be opposed with all the might of VCII?

MRyan wrote:
..and, “having probed more profoundly into the mystery of the Church”, the “Council explored the mystery, outlined the divine design of the constitution, deepened the nature, illustrated the mission, [and, among other things] re-evaluated the vocation of the laity and their part in the mission of the People of God.”

I'll agree if you substitute the words; explored, outlined, deepened, illustrated and re-evaluated with the word "weakened."

MRyan wrote:
You say “the Second Vatican Counci definitely failed to make known in any comprehensible way to the faithful the results of this profound probing of the mysteries of the Church”, and I say you have never engaged in a serious study or critique of the Council documents. Your sarcastic bromides and gross characterizations are nothing more than warmed-over rad-trad talking points, and do not in any way reflect the thoughtful introspection, the filial respect and the humble approach befitting of any serious study of the Magisterial documents of an Ecumenical Vatican Council.

I say not only did the Second Vatican Council demonstrably fail to make known anything that wasn't previously known but demonstrably confused even those things which were previously of common knowledge.

Those "warmed-over rad-trad talking points" are the very crux of the debate and if they didn't hold water they would have been long ago dealt with conclusively. The only way to date that they have been dealt with is by means of detraction of character of persons who hold them. The very reason we are here debating them as laymen is due to the failure of Popes and Majisterium to confront the issues. There was hope for a while that the SSPX might finally have proper discussions concerning these points but alas (despite initial promises) they were denied. So much for the new openess proclaimed from the roof tops at the beginning of the Council.

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
3. "For the human person deserves to be preserved; human society deserves to be renewed. Hence the focal point of our total presentation will be man himself, whole and entire, body and soul, heart and conscience, mind and will."

I didn't know that the human person deserved to be preserved. I thought that the human person deserved the wrath of God but by His mercy He chose to preserve those who believed in and followed the teachings of Christ His son.

Again, what are we to make of such ignorant and gross characterizations? The human person does NOT need to be preserved, seeing that he was created in God’s image and redeemed by the humanity of Christ? No, says, Columba, man was created for Hell and deserves only the wrath of God for having been born into original sin (well, except for the chosen elect).

And note well how Columba simply ignores the context of the cited passage, with the passage immediately preceeding saying “The council brings to mankind light kindled from the Gospel, and puts at its disposal those saving resources which the Church herself, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, receives from her Founder”

Deal with what I said Mike and not the straw man.
Question: Does man deserve to be preserved? Yes or No?

Next distortion:
I did not say nor do I believe that man was created for hell. I already knows that man was created to know, love and serve God and by this means obtain heaven. What I believes and am certain of is that man does not deserve anything at all. All that God gives man is gratuitous. If you are attacking that statement of mine then you are attacking the Church.

The context in this particular case is a moot point. Certain statements are either true or false in themselves regardless of context.

MRyan wrote:
In other words, the Council declares that the “human person deserved to be preserved” precisely because, created in His image and likeness, and already united to Him (in a non-salvific way) by virtue of the Incarnation, he deserves to be “rescued” and elevated into divine son-ship by our Lord

A grossly false statement there Mike and comming from someone who claims to know better. No matter how you cut it you cannot say that "the human person deserved to be preserved.” What you can say is that depite not being deserving of it, God deemed to preserve those who united themselves with Christ His Son. You take issue with points that even a kindergarten catechumen would know to be true.

MRyan wrote:
Lest Columba have one of his catatonic seizures at the very thought of being “united to Christ by virtue of the Incarnation”, St. Cyril provided the following relevant explanation:

No catatonic seizures here.
I have no problem at all with every human person being united to Christ by the very fact of their sharing in His humanity. My problem is that every human person is not united to Christ forever because some refuse to have a share in His divinity.
St Cyril is saying no more than what I am saying.

Will return soon. Duty calls again.

George Brenner Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:02 pm

in eodem sensu eademque sententia or This certain and unchangeable teaching:

“And it tends to the same end as this horrible system of religious indifferentism tends in matters of religion, a system that is even repugnant to the simple light of natural reason. It is through this system, in fact, that these subtle artisans of the lie seek to destroy all distinction between vice and virtue, truth and error, honor and shameful torpidity, criminally thinking men of all cults and every religion can be led to the hope of eternal salvation. As if there could be a participation of justice with iniquity, and alliance of light with darkness, some sort of relationship between Jesus Christ and Belial(3).”

Pius IX, Encyclical Qui pluribus of November 9, 1846, in Recueil des allocutions consistoriales, Encycliques et autres lettres apostoliques (Paris: Adrien le Clerc, 1865), p. 181."

JMJ,

George

columba Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:24 pm

MRyan wrote:
Columba’s response? “[O]ne could be forgiven for thinking these chapters were co-authored by David Attenborough and a Buddhist monk. Before anyone starts objecting, just read them.”

Yes, please do read them, and read also the concluding section 10 which places sections 4-9 (detailing the “the outstanding problems of our time”) and the entire Introductory Statement into context by offering mankind the only solution:

Isn't strange that so many statements in Guadium et Spes and nearly all other VCII documents need context before they can be squeezed into orthodoxy, and even then they at best remain hanging on a cliff edge. It so easy to quote a sentence or two from, say, Trent and immediately find it wholey orthodox. Like I said before (as did St. Pius V), ambiguity itself is an error and even more so than an outright unashamed error, for it is more insidious, breeds indifferentism and causes more damage to faith and morals than any other form of attack. Those who use such language should be held in contempt.

MRyan wrote:
The obfuscating “logic” permeating Columba’s arrogant “analysis” continues unabated with this gem:

I know... The truth always appears arrogant.

MRyan wrote:
The rest of your “analysis”, Columba, is just more of the same, and I am done wasting my time exposing your shallow thinking, poor ecclesiology, misplaced sarcasm and petty whining. You are not fit to undertake a serious critique of Gaudium et Spes, or any other Council document, and only bring discredit upon yourself when you post such inanities.

It still remains for you to point out the error/s in anything I've said above. The straw man attacks are not addressing what I said but merely addressing those things you wish I had said. If you can't address the actual points made then how on earth do you expect to deal with the document/s themselves in a serious fassion? You could much more easily find fault in the documents if you applied even a smidgen of the same critical analysis to them as you apply to the likes of yours truly.

columba Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:53 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne, one of my brothers committed suicide. He received a funeral Mass and Christian burial. Is there something you would like to share with me that I do not already know?

My brother may very well be lost, but not a day goes by that I do not pray for the repose of his soul. I will not give up hope, and I will not despair. I can only appeal to God's mercy and "temporary insanity". My father prayed that none of his would be lost ... that is my prayer as well.

Mike, I don't despair either of those who have taken their own lives. The prayers of family and others can come to their rescue in the minutes or seconds between their action and their death.

I read once about a saint (whose name escapes me) who prayed for such a soul and the Lord revealed to her that by her prayers, between the bridge and the water the soul received the grace of final repentance and was saved from enternal perdition.

St. Padre Pio once said that prayers can still be offered to obtain a holy death for those who are already dead because with God there is no time does not exist. Prayers offered (posthumous) for a happy death can still be applied at the hour of death.

I have/will pray for your brother.

O Father St Joseph, assist him at the hour of death that even though he desrve the eternal flames of hell, by thy infalible prayers he MAY obtain mercy and forgiveness and be granted a share in the eternal happiness of heaven through the merits of thy beloved foster son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen
St. Joseph, patron of departing souls pray for him.

columba Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:00 pm

MRyan wrote:
Yes, my "ignorant" comment was an "ad hominem", but sometimes they can serve a useful purpose ... though in this case it was unnecessary.

Consider this an apology, but please note that I find your sarcastic and seemingly thoughtless responses/characterizations insulting, though I know that is not your intention.

Apology accepted Mike.
We do all have our unique ways of expressing ourselves. It kinda makes it less like conversing with robots. Smile

columba Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:27 pm

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:

13. "Indeed, man finds that by himself he is incapable of battling the assaults of evil successfully, so that everyone feels as though he is bound by chains."

Is this a true statement? In my experience (even among Catholics) the majority aren't aware of any battle gong on and definitely not every man feels as though he is bound by chains. Bound they are but many don't know or feel it,

No, Columba, you tell us, is the statement an objective truth, or isn’t it? Every man knows that by himself he is incapable of battling the assaults of evil (just look around). The preceding sentence tells us precisely what GS is referring to: “As a result, all of human life, whether individual or collective, shows itself to be a dramatic struggle between good and evil, between light and darkness.”

Only a fool would argue that in human life there is not a constant battle between good and evil, “whether individual or collective”. And you question this truth (whether the Church actually believes it) because it is your “experience (even among Catholics)” that “the majority aren't aware of any battle gong on”? Of course “the majority” are aware, but many shield themselves from this reality by ignoring it and filling their minds with the “reality” of “Jersey Shore”, “The Real Housewives of [name the city]” and all such mind-numbing trash.

Don’t confuse man’s coping mechanisms and nihilism with objective truth itself, which no man can deny without looking entirely foolish. Not even an atheist can deny this constant struggle between light and darkness that takes place in humanity, whether in the individual or in the collective, even if he considers what is “evil”, “good” and truth itself to be entirely subjective.

Well put Mike. Pitty Gaudium et Spes hadn't put it that way. If it had we wouldn't be debating but again you are saying what you wished the document had said but didn't.

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:

15. "Man judges rightly that by his intellect he surpasses the material universe, for he shares in the light of the divine mind."

The Church judges rightly but I sincerely doubt that Man does. Many men think that the material universe is god.

In other words, as GS just said in # 14 by way of transition:

# 14: [Man] regards himself as superior to bodily concerns, and as more than a speck of nature or a nameless constituent of the city of man. For by his interior qualities he outstrips the whole sum of mere things. He plunges into the depths of reality whenever he enters into his own heart; God, Who probes the heart, awaits him there; there he discerns his proper destiny beneath the eyes of God. Thus, when he recognizes in himself a spiritual and immortal soul, he is not being mocked by a fantasy born only of physical or social influences, but is rather laying hold of the proper truth of the matter.[Man] regards himself as superior to bodily
concerns, and as more than a speck of nature or a nameless constituent of the city of man. For by his interior qualities he outstrips the whole sum of mere things. He plunges into the depths of reality whenever he enters into his own heart; God, Who probes the heart, awaits him there; there he discerns his proper destiny beneath the eyes of God. Thus, when he recognizes in himself a spiritual and immortal soul, he is not being mocked by a fantasy born only of physical or social influences, but is rather laying hold of the proper truth of the matter.

MRyan wrote:
Man knows instinctively and by natural reason the truth of the first part (i.e., that “Man judges rightly that by his intellect he surpasses the material universe”), but only by grace can he discern his “proper destiny beneath the eyes of God”.

Your “objection”, Columba, is a straw-man.

There's no mention of grace in the whole chapter. No mention at all of the necessity of grace and the necessary cooperation of the one receiving it. We are to believe that man can come to these realizations all on his own even though we already know that without Christ he can do nothing.
You are explaining to me Mike those things I already know. My point is that GS does not explain these Catholic understandings; those very things which differentiate the Catholic Faith from all others.

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:

16. "Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin."

Here we are assured that invincible ignorance is a done deal. Could it not have been said more accurately that, “Conscience frequently errs from non-willful ignorance without losing its dignity?”

A “done deal” - what are you talking about? We are assured that “invincible ignorance” exists by the very fact that "Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity”; meaning of course that a conscience that willfully errs is not inculpable, and GS then confirms this truth by explicitly stating that ignorance is NOT invincible (inculpable) when the conscience loses it dignity by caring “little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin."

Yes. It leads one to believe that invincible ignorance is a reality, yet no human being -unaided by divine revelation- has the ability to know this but we do know that "invincible ignorance" is not found in, nor consistant with, the deposit of faith. In fact Holy Scripture actually contradicts the very existance of invincible ignorance. The term non-willful could have easily been used in this case (and in all cases) but in order to promote the idea of salvation outside the Church,(the whole resaon for VCII), the term "invincible ignorance" must be employed. There is an agenda and it's not a good one.

In Fr. Feeney's day I could well have been branded a conspiracy theorist because of the general lack of knowledge concerning the purpose of the Council at that time, but today, the cat is out of the bag, and the agenda is plainer than the nose on ones face.

MRyan wrote:
In other words, “Conscience frequently errs from non-willful ignorance without losing its dignity”. Does GS have to draw you a picture? Can’t you put two sentences together without twisting the words of the first, thus rendering the words of the last entirely meaningless or contradictory? Why do you take such careless liberty?

It is you who are taking liberties Mike by putting words in GS which are not there. What you have just said can be found in pre-VCII documents but not in GS.
Spelling it out is not something that GS or any of the VCII documents does and because they don't and thus leave room for erronious interpretations they must be held to be in favor of the erronious interpretation.

More later..

RememberGethsemane Sat Dec 22, 2012 6:20 am

Gee can't hear big boy Mike anymore. He was posting willy nilly on this topic for days then suddenly stopped. Let's hear the venom from him and accusations and bully tactics he uses when he comes back to defend the indefensible.

MRyan Sat Dec 22, 2012 10:42 am

columba wrote:
There's no mention of grace in the whole chapter [of GS]. No mention at all of the necessity of grace and the necessary cooperation of the one receiving it. We are to believe that man can come to these realizations all on his own even though we already know that without Christ he can do nothing.

Really? No mention at all in Chapter I, The Dignity of the Human Person?

Well, let’s see:

15… It is, finally, through the gift of the Holy Spirit that man comes by faith to the contemplation and appreciation of the divine plan. [8]

([8] Sirach, 17:7-8; "He filled them with knowledge and intelligence, and showed them what was good and what evil. He put his own light [grace - "the gift of the Holy Spirit"] in their hearts to show them the magnificence of his works.")

17… Since man's freedom has been damaged by sin, only by the aid of God's grace can he bring such a relationship with God into full flower. Before the judgement seat of God each man must render an account of his own life, whether he has done good or evil.(13)

Gosh Columba, no.15 declares that it is “through the gift [the grace] of the Holy Spirit that man comes by faith to the contemplation and appreciation of the divine plan”, while no.17 also affirms the truth you insist remains unstated … that ONLY by the aid of God's grace can he bring such a relationship with God into full flower.

In the same chapter:

22. The truth is that only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light. For Adam, the first man, was a figure of Him Who was to come,(20) namely Christ the Lord. Christ, the final Adam, by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals man to man himself and makes his supreme calling clear. It is not surprising, then, that in Him all the aforementioned truths find their root and attain their crown.

Now, what part of this do you not understand? How can accuse the Church of remaining mute on a necessary truth when it is in fact clearly affirmed?

MRyan Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:31 pm

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
columba wrote:

16. "Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin."

Here we are assured that invincible ignorance is a done deal. Could it not have been said more accurately that, “Conscience frequently errs from non-willful ignorance without losing its dignity?”
A “done deal” - what are you talking about? We are assured that “invincible ignorance” exists by the very fact that "Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity”; meaning of course that a conscience that willfully errs is not inculpable, and GS then confirms this truth by explicitly stating that ignorance is NOT invincible (inculpable) when the conscience loses it dignity by caring “little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin."
Yes. It leads one to believe that invincible ignorance is a reality, yet no human being -unaided by divine revelation- has the ability to know this but we do know that "invincible ignorance" is not found in, nor consistant with, the deposit of faith. In fact Holy Scripture actually contradicts the very existance of invincible ignorance. The term non-willful could have easily been used in this case (and in all cases) but in order to promote the idea of salvation outside the Church, (the whole resaon for VCII), the term "invincible ignorance" must be employed. There is an agenda and it's not a good one.

In Fr. Feeney's day I could well have been branded a conspiracy theorist because of the general lack of knowledge concerning the purpose of the Council at that time, but today, the cat is out of the bag, and the agenda is plainer than the nose on ones face.

And I am supposed to waste my time responding (defending "the indefensible") to such gratuitous fallacies as these:

1. That "Holy Scripture actually contradicts the very existance of invincible ignorance", and

2. The "whole reason of VCII" was "to promote the idea of salvation outside the Church".

To point no.1, someone should have explained to Pope Pius IX that "Holy Scripture actually contradicts the very existence of invincible ignorance" when he taught, for example, "There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion." (QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE)

Now how can there be those "who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion" if "Holy Scripture actually contradicts the very existence of invincible ignorance"?

Poor Pius IX, he was so confused when he declared in Singulari Quadem, December 9, 1854:

"For it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God."

Columba says no, they "ARE ... stained by ... guilt in this matter in the eyes of God" because "Holy Scripture actually contradicts the very existence of invincible ignorance".

In other words, when pope Pius IX declares that "it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God", Columba says their ignorance can never be invincible, for it does not and cannot actually exist (according to Holy Scripture)!

But Pope Pius IX seems to be quite stubborn in opposing Holy Scripture, for in Singulari Quidem, 1856, #7, he declared that:

"This hope of salvation is placed in the Catholic Church which, in preserving the true worship, is the solid home of this faith and the temple of God. Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control."

As Columba goes screaming into the night, he can only wonder how it is that in the teaching of Pope Pius IX, "Here we are assured that invincible ignorance is a done deal", especially when he "leads one to believe that invincible ignorance is a reality" when, according to our Irish sage, "we do know that 'invincible ignorance' is not found in, nor consistent with, the deposit of faith. In fact Holy Scripture actually contradicts the very existence of invincible ignorance."

It would appear that Pope Pius IX and Gaudium et Spes are consistent in that each "leads one to believe that invincible ignorance is a reality", and the fact that "no human being -unaided by divine revelation- has the ability to know this" is entirely irrelevant to this "reality"; the latter teaches:

16. "Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin."

Returning now to columba's original objection, he said:

Here we are assured that invincible ignorance is a done deal. Could it not have been said more accurately that, “Conscience frequently errs from non-willful ignorance without losing its dignity?”

And I said, that is precisely what this passage says, and it is clearly stated (even more clearly stated than your truncated rendition), for invincible ignorance is not a "done deal ("it cannot be said") for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin."

But your response begs the question, how can you suggest that GS should have said "Conscience frequently errs from non-willful ignorance without losing its dignity?" when this clearly implies that "invincible ignorance is a done deal", for "non-willful ignorance" is in fact the same as "invincible ignorance", which, according to you, "we do know that 'invincible ignorance' is not found in, nor consistent with, the deposit of faith. In fact Holy Scripture actually contradicts the very existence of invincible ignorance"?

About the gratuitous and fallacious accusation no. 2: The "whole reason of VCII" was "to promote the idea of salvation outside the Church", only folks like RS believe that defending the actual truth of the matter is "defending the indefensible".

And you dare accuse me, columba, of "putting words in GS which are not there. What you have just said can be found in pre-VCII documents but not in GS."

Sure, let's not deal with reality and the actual words/teaching of GS and Pope Pius IX, let's waste our time "debating' columba's spin and false accusations.

MRyan Sat Dec 22, 2012 1:02 pm

RememberGethsemane wrote:Gee can't hear big boy Mike anymore. He was posting willy nilly on this topic for days then suddenly stopped. Let's hear the venom from him and accusations and bully tactics he uses when he comes back to defend the indefensible.

I thought you told me you took your meds?

RememberGethsemane Sat Dec 22, 2012 6:08 pm

MRyan wrote:
RememberGethsemane wrote:Gee can't hear big boy Mike anymore. He was posting willy nilly on this topic for days then suddenly stopped. Let's hear the venom from him and accusations and bully tactics he uses when he comes back to defend the indefensible.
I thought you told me you took your meds?

True to form as always Mike, I see you haven't taken my advice though.

I think there will come a time when you are the only one posting on this forum steadfastly defending the indefensible to yourself.

columba Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:02 pm

MRyan wrote:

15… It is, finally, through the gift of the Holy Spirit that man comes by faith to the contemplation and appreciation of the divine plan. [8]

([8] Sirach, 17:7-8; "He filled them with knowledge and intelligence, and showed them what was good and what evil. He put his own light [grace - "the gift of the Holy Spirit"] in their hearts to show them the magnificence of his works.")

17… Since man's freedom has been damaged by sin, only by the aid of God's grace can he bring such a relationship with God into full flower. Before the judgement seat of God each man must render an account of his own life, whether he has done good or evil.(13)

Gosh Columba, no.15 declares that it is “through the gift [the grace] of the Holy Spirit that man comes by faith to the contemplation and appreciation of the divine plan”, while no.17 also affirms the truth you insist remains unstated … that ONLY by the aid of God's grace can he bring such a relationship with God into full flower.

Mike,

I see you found the word "grace" in 17 above. I'll have to amend my assertion to one instance rather than none and by doing so I won't be dramatically changing the over all message of chapter 1; i.e, that man is the exalted deity of GS. Your next quote (22) aptly makes the point and is more true to the tone of the document.

22. The truth is that only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light. For Adam, the first man, was a figure of Him Who was to come,(20) namely Christ the Lord. Christ, the final Adam, by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals man to man himself and makes his supreme calling clear. It is not surprising, then, that in Him all the aforementioned truths find their root and attain their crown.

This "mystery of man" is a queer term that I bet couldn't be found in any pre VC2 document; we were always so used to contemplating the "mystery of God" that it's quite a shock to the pius ear to be redirected in this way.
The fact that "Christ, the final Adam (on passing, I'm sure there's some deviation in meaning by the use of the term 'the final Adam' as opposed to the more traditional term 'the new Adam') by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals man to man himself," again turns the focus away from God and back to man. Since when did we prefer the revelation of "man to himself" (whatever that's supposed to be) above the revelation of God to man? Think I'll leave that kind of revelation to be contemplated by the Buddhists.

MRyan wrote:
Now, what part of this do you not understand? How can accuse the Church of remaining mute on a necessary truth when it is in fact clearly affirmed?

Yep. No lack of clarity there. As clear as the old London smog.

columba Sat Dec 22, 2012 8:39 pm

MRyan wrote:
And I am supposed to waste my time responding (defending "the indefensible") to such gratuitous fallacies as these:

1. That "Holy Scripture actually contradicts the very existance of invincible ignorance", and

I'm not asking you to waste your time defending gratuitous fallacies. The fallacy here is that Holy Scripture supports invincible ignorance when Holy Scripture actually makes it quite clear that those who remain in ignorance are thus so by their own fault as St. Paul tells the Romans (1:18-20)
“For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it to them. For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity; so that they are inexcusable."

and again, the Lord Himself declares in John 18:37,
"..every one who is of the truth, heareth my voice.”

Or, as St. Augustine would understand it,

Consequently both those who have not heard the gospel and those who, having heard it, and having been changed for the better, did not receive perseverance; none of these are separated from that lump which is known to be damned. (Admonition and Grace)

MRyan wrote:
2. The "whole reason of VCII" was "to promote the idea of salvation outside the Church".

Judging by the words and actions of JPII and BXVI it sure seems (if their interpretation of the documents be correct) that salvation outside the Church is indeed -at the very least- implicit in the documents of VC2.

MRyan wrote:
To point no.1, someone should have explained to Pope Pius IX that "Holy Scripture actually contradicts the very existence of invincible ignorance" when he taught, for example, "There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion." (QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE)

You're possibly correct with regards to Pope Pius IX. He wasn't declaring a dogma to the Cardinals therefore his words must not be taken in contradicton to prior dogmatic proclamations concerning the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation.
To whatever extent their ignorance was inculpable they would not be held to account. Sounds right to me and in line with Church teaching. This I'm sure is what Pope Pius was saying. We can only hope that there is no such thing as invincible ignorance else all those who are struggling with it are doomed to remain unenlightened by the very fact that it is invincible (can't be overcome).

MRyan wrote:
Now how can there be those "who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion" if "Holy Scripture actually contradicts the very existence of invincible ignorance"?

That's the big question for those who hold the doctrine of invincible ignorance. St Augustin and St Thomas didn't see any contradiction and neither do I. Where do you see the contradiction? Remenber, if they are invincibly ignorant they are infallibly lost even if not because of their inculpable ignorance.

MRyan wrote:
Poor Pius IX, he was so confused when he declared in Singulari Quadem, December 9, 1854:

"For it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God."

I don't think Pope Pius IX needs our sympathy. He's merely stating that the invincibly ignorant won't be damned for their ignorance, but as we know, they will be lost for other faults.

As for the remainder of your post Mike I think I've addressed it above. Like I said, invincible ignorance (if it exists), rather than being salvific is the surest sign of perdition. Unfortunately since VII we are led to believe that ignorance is bliss and in believing so have abandoned the mission entrusted by Christ to His Church to go teach all nations.

MRyan Fri Dec 28, 2012 6:50 pm

columba wrote:

Dei Verbum for example ignores its own teaching regarding the handing on and the guarding of the Deposit of Faith when this is no longer a stated requirement of nor bound by any oath for one who takes up the office of pope.

Let me get this straight, “Dei Verbum … ignores its own teaching regarding the handing on and the guarding of the Deposit of Faith because the pope does not bind himself to the stated requirement of Die Verbum (since he does not take an oath stating that he binds himself to handing on and guarding the Deposit of Faith).

Your outrageous allegation suggests that the Roman Pontiff can ignore as “non-binding” the stated requirement of Dei Verbum, the dogmatic declarations of the 1st Vatican Council and this infallible and irreformable Tradition of the Church, all because the Papal Oath (the so-called “coronation oath”, “usually given in English with very imprecise references as to the original source”) is not part of the inauguration rite, as if it is an established fact that the Papal Oath was said by the majority of previous popes, and that we know what this alleged oath actually said.

Stop drinking the rad-trad/sede Kool-Aid.

What you ignore is the fact that as soon as the Pope accepts the office, he is so bound by divine assurance when he takes possession of the Keys and receives immediate and full Primacy and Spiritual authority over the universal Church of Christ. An “oath” of office is somewhat redundant; and, while some version of an oath might add to the pomp, pageantry and solemnity of the ceremony, it could:

cast doubt on the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Unlike earthly kings and other authorities who must promise to uphold some authority higher and greater than themselves -- such as the constitution or the laws and customs of the realm -- the pope's fidelity regarding the essentials of faith and morals is guaranteed by the highest authority itself. In other words, a pope cannot make an oath of fidelity to God when it is God himself who has assured the Church that the ‘gates of hell’ will not prevail against the one chosen as Christ's vicar on earth. (http://www.zenit.org/article-34373?l=english)

From Wikipedia:

The modern papal inauguration, developed from the form used for John Paul I, takes place during Mass (usually in the piazza outside Saint Peter's Basilica) and involves the formal bestowal of the pallium, the symbol of the pope's universal jurisdiction, on the newly elected pope by the senior Cardinal Deacon.

Pope Benedict XVI maintained those changes and also shortened, as explained below, the ceremony of homage previously paid at a papal inauguration by each cardinal individually, repeating the "act of homage and obedience" made in the conclave to the new pope before the announcement of his election to the people.

The modern ceremony does not, of course, include the alleged Papal Oath that some traditionalist Catholics claim, without evidence, to have been sworn by the popes before John Paul I. They criticise its absence, and some sedevacantist groups refuse to accept the legitimacy of the modern popes due to the absence of both the alleged oath and the symbolic tiara.

Pope JPII said "This is not the time to return to a ceremony and an object considered, wrongly, to be a symbol of the temporal power of the Popes."

The fact of the matter is, Columba, this alleged “coronation oath” is of dubious origins, the text of which (it can be found only in English) is itself highly suspect. As the same linked article states:

However, this discussion regarding the text of the oath is somewhat moot because it is highly unlikely that this oath was ever used at all in papal coronations and certainly not from the sixth to the 20th centuries given that the earliest recorded papal coronation ceremony is that of Pope Celestine II in 1143.

A Wikipedia article on this topic points out, "The only historical source claimed for this 'Papal Oath' is Migne's Patrologia Latina, referring, it can be supposed, to volume 105, columns 40-44. Patrologia Latina, 105, columns 9-188 reproduces, with notes and commentary, the full text of Garnier's 1680 edition of the Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum. The article in The Catholic Encyclopedia on this book states that Garnier's edition 'is very inaccurate, and contains arbitrary alterations of the text' … The Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum is in fact a 'miscellaneous collection of ecclesiastical formularies used in the papal chancery until the 11th century.' It then fell into disuse and was soon forgotten and lost, until a manuscript containing it was discovered in the 17th century. Its rediscovery in the 17th century caused surprise precisely because the text declared acceptance of the condemnations of the Sixth General Council, which were directed also against Pope Honorius I. In the opinion of one writer, the oath had the effect of confirming that an ecumenical council could condemn a Pope for open heresy and that Honorius was justly condemned.

This same article also points out that the English version is very different from the original, adding the most crucial concepts including the paragraphs: "I swear ... defined and declared" and "Accordingly, without exclusion ... blasphemous venture" and the phrase "I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I."

Nor is there much evidence that the oath existed in recent times. A detailed description of the coronation of Pope Leo XIII in 1878, plus freely available video footage of the coronations of Pius XII and John XXIII, all show the total absence of any coronation oath. In all cases a cardinal recites a brief formula before crowning the new pope. Immediately after the coronation the pope imparts the blessing urbi et orbi, adopting the formula still in use today.

From a different perspective we could also point out that it was always understood that while the coronation was a splendid ceremony, it did not affect the pope's spiritual authority. The pope has full authority from the moment he accepts election as bishop of Rome.

So, yes, Columba, “This alleged Papal Coronation oath has been used by several such groups as ‘proof’ that the Church has abandoned the true faith”, and it is dubious, at best.

But, it is music to your ears, even though it proves absolutely nothing regarding the inherent Primacy and spiritual authority of the Roman Pontiff, and his divine protection from handing on and guarding something other than the Deposit of Faith (in his official acts as Peter).

Columba, I'm just getting warmed-up, we have a ways to go. Your responses are packed-full of such inanities.

MRyan Fri Dec 28, 2012 7:47 pm

columba wrote:This is a follow-on from the previous thread where I still have a duty to respond to Mike concerning what I perceive to be errors contained in Gaudium et Spes and refuted in The Syllabus of Errors.

You also said:

I do indeed think that the reaffirmation of the decrees of previous councils is a good thing, as long as those affirmations are not contradicted or nullified in the same dicument that reafirms them.

Columba, you began this thread acknowledging your “duty” to demonstrate the specific doctrinal errors of Gaudium et Spes, and their corresponding refutation in the Syllabus. Yet, you haven’t quite got around to it, have you.

When I asked you what was the point of all of this childish “venting” (without a single substantive fact), you said:

The point of the exercise was to vent some frustration and give you something to heat your blood while unfortunately and unintentionally having you wait for a full response to your challenge.

My blood remains at a steady temperature, for it does not take much effort to tear down your sarcastic attacks against the Church, which have been shown to be shallow, factually incorrect and immature.

One example:

MRyan wrote:
columba wrote:
There's no mention of grace in the whole chapter [of GS]. No mention at all of the necessity of grace and the necessary cooperation of the one receiving it. We are to believe that man can come to these realizations all on his own even though we already know that without Christ he can do nothing.
Really? No mention at all in Chapter I, The Dignity of the Human Person?

Well, let’s see:

15… It is, finally, through the gift of the Holy Spirit that man comes by faith to the contemplation and appreciation of the divine plan. [8]

([8] Sirach, 17:7-8; "He filled them with knowledge and intelligence, and showed them what was good and what evil. He put his own light [grace - "the gift of the Holy Spirit"] in their hearts to show them the magnificence of his works.")

17… Since man's freedom has been damaged by sin, only by the aid of God's grace can he bring such a relationship with God into full flower. Before the judgement seat of God each man must render an account of his own life, whether he has done good or evil.(13)
Gosh Columba, no.15 declares that it is “through the gift [the grace] of the Holy Spirit that man comes by faith to the contemplation and appreciation of the divine plan”, while no.17 also affirms the truth you insist remains unstated … that ONLY by the aid of God's grace can he bring such a relationship with God into full flower.

In the same chapter:

22. The truth is that only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light. For Adam, the first man, was a figure of Him Who was to come,(20) namely Christ the Lord. Christ, the final Adam, by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals man to man himself and makes his supreme calling clear. It is not surprising, then, that in Him all the aforementioned truths find their root and attain their crown.
Now, what part of this do you not understand? How can accuse the Church of remaining mute on a necessary truth when it is in fact clearly affirmed?

Columba, your response:

I see you found the word "grace" in 17 above. I'll have to amend my assertion to one instance rather than none and by doing so I won't be dramatically changing the over all message of chapter 1; i.e, that man is the exalted deity of GS.

Note well the implication. I “found” one instance of the word “grace”, but, you say, this changes nothing, for the overall message of GS remains the same: “that man is the exalted deity of GS”.

In other words, never mind that GS teaches that “It is, finally, through the gift of the Holy Spirit that man comes by faith to the contemplation and appreciation of the divine plan.”, which has a direct reference to Sirach, 17:7-8, which says; "He filled them with knowledge and intelligence, and showed them what was good and what evil. He put his own light [grace - "the gift of the Holy Spirit"] in their hearts to show them the magnificence of his works."); and never mind that GS teaches “Since man's freedom has been damaged by sin, only by the aid of God's grace can he bring such a relationship with God into full flower”; none of this matters, not the citations, not the overall context, nothing, for the TRUE meaning remains the same: “that man is the exalted deity of GS”.

According to you, GS teaches that man is an exalted deity, a god unto himself, and that this heresy is its true meaning. In fact, Columba, you go on to say:

“Your next quote (22) aptly makes the point [that man is an exalted deity] and is more true to the tone of the document [the deity of man]”:

“22. The truth is that only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light. For Adam, the first man, was a figure of Him Who was to come,(20) namely Christ the Lord. Christ, the final Adam, by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals man to man himself and makes his supreme calling clear. It is not surprising, then, that in Him all the aforementioned truths find their root and attain their crown.”

Columba continues:

This "mystery of man" is a queer term that I bet couldn't be found in any pre VC2 document; we were always so used to contemplating the "mystery of God" that it's quite a shock to the pius ear to be redirected in this way.

There is nothing “queer” about it for it is referring to the mystery of the imago Dei, man as the image of God, and his “supreme calling”.

The passage (22) makes it clear (it is revealed “truth”) that “only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light”, and then explains that the “mystery of man” is nothing else and nothing less than the mystery of “his supreme calling”, and that “Christ … by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals man to man himself” and that “in Him all the aforementioned truths find their root and attain their crown.”

Cardinal Ratzinger said it like this:

… Man is created in the image of God, but he is not God himself…” and “as we have seen, the mystery of the human is made fully clear only in the light of Christ who is the perfect image of the Father and who introduces us, through the Holy Spirit, to a participation in the mystery of the triune God. It is within this communion of love that the mystery of all being, as embraced by God, finds its fullest meaning… (ITC, COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm)

Yes, really “queer”, that.

columba wrote:The fact that "Christ, the final Adam (on passing, I'm sure there's some deviation in meaning by the use of the term 'the final Adam' as opposed to the more traditional term 'the new Adam') by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals man to man himself," again turns the focus away from God and back to man. Since when did we prefer the revelation of "man to himself" (whatever that's supposed to be) above the revelation of God to man? Think I'll leave that kind of revelation to be contemplated by the Buddhists.

1 Corinthians 15:45 “The first man Adam was made into a living soul; the last Adam into a quickening spirit.” Yes, Columba, a real “deviation”. No wonder it offends your "pious" ears.

You appear to be engaged in a bit of self-absorbed nazel gazing yourself, as your continued and deplorable corruption of the texts would indicate. Let’s read the very next passage of GS #22:

He Who is "the image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15),(21) is Himself the perfect man. To the sons of Adam He restores the divine likeness which had been disfigured from the first sin onward. Since human nature as He assumed it was not annulled,(22) by that very fact it has been raised up to a divine dignity in our respect too. For by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man. He worked with human hands, He thought with a human mind, acted by human choice(23) and loved with a human heart. Born of the Virgin Mary, He has truly been made one of us, like us in all things except sin.(24)

Sure, the “focus” is all on man, the little “god-man”, an “exalted deity”, and THAT is the true meaning of Gaudium et Spes, so says Columba, of pious ears.

MRyan Fri Dec 28, 2012 9:23 pm

89. Since, in virtue of her mission received from God, the Church preaches the Gospel to all men and dispenses the treasures of grace, she contributes to the ensuring of peace everywhere on earth and to the placing of the fraternal exchange between men on solid ground by imparting knowledge of the divine and natural law. Therefore, to encourage and stimulate cooperation among men, the Church must be clearly present in the midst of the community of nations both through her official channels and through the full and sincere collaboration of all Christians—a collaboration motivated solely by the desire to be of service to all.

This will come about more effectively if the faithful themselves, conscious of their responsibility as men and as Christians will exert their influence in their own milieu to arouse a ready willingness to cooperate with the international community. Special care must be given, in both religious and civil education, to the formation of youth in this regard. (Gaudium et Spes)

Vatican II Document: Gaudium et Spes

http://mytransfigurednetwork.com/pages/VaticanIIDocuments-2/

Gaudium et Spes (“Joy and Hope”), the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on 7 December, 1965 (the day the council ended) and approved by a vote of 2,307 to 75 of the bishops assembled.

The document is an overview of the Catholic Church's teachings about humanity's relationship to society, especially in reference to economics, poverty, social justice, culture, science, technology and ecumenism.

The world was very different in 1965 and the document begins with a bold and courageous statement:

The joys and hopes, the grief and anguish of the people of our time, especially of those who are poor or afflicted, are the joys and hopes, the grief and anguish of the followers of Christ as well.

The Council concludes that the modern world shows itself at once powerful and weak, capable of the noblest deeds or the foulest; before it lies the path to freedom or to slavery, to progress or retreat, to community or hatred. (a. 9)

The Council sets out to establish a working relationship with the world in which it finds itself; the Church goes forward together with humanity and experiences the same earthly lot which the world does. The followers of Christ share the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of today’s people, especially those who are poor; Christians are joined with the rest of society in the search for truth. The mission of the Church includes these religious and less specifically religious goals:

• To reveal the mystery of God [a. 4]
• To make God present and in a sense visible [a. 21]
• To communicate God's life to people and cast the reflected light of that life over the entire earth [a. 40]
• To carry forward the work of Christ under the lead of the Spirit [a. 3]
• To preach the Gospel to everyone and dispense the treasures of grace [a. 89]
• To guard the heritage of God's Word and draw from it moral and religious principles (a. 33); to work that God's Kingdom may come, and that the salvation of the whole human race may come to pass [a. 45]
• To scrutinize the signs of the times and interpret them in the light of the Gospel [a. 4]
• To hear, distinguish and interpret the many voices of our age, and judge them in the light of God's Word [a. 44];
• To promote unity [a. 42]
• To stimulate and advance human and civic culture [a. 58]
• To foster and elevate all that is found to be true, good and beautiful in the human community [a. 76]
• To shed on the whole world the radiance of the Gospel message, and to unify under one Spirit all people of whatever nation, race or culture [a. 92]

Asserting that the Church can open up to people the meaning of their own existence, GS addresses the human person and human activity and experience. It says that people are more precious for what they are than for what they have. The dignity of the human person applies to the human body, good and honorable, which God created and will raise up on the last day; the human intellect, which shares in the light of the divine mind; and the human conscience, the most secret core and sanctuary of a person where one is alone with God. Human dignity demands the freedom to direct oneself toward goodness.

The Council promotes respect for both individuals and the community. It asserts that the beginning, the subject and the goal of all social institutions is and must be the human person. Respect for human dignity means that everyone must have what they need to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, shelter, the freedom to choose a state of life and found a family, the right to education, employment, a good reputation, respect, appropriate information, action in good conscience, protection of privacy, and religious freedom.

God made us into one family, and we should treat one another in a spirit of community. Every social group must respect the needs and aspirations of other groups as well as the general welfare of the entire human family. We must make ourselves the neighbor of every person without exception, and each of us must consider every neighbor without exception as another self.

The dignity of the individual and the community demands respect for life: whatever is opposed to life poisons human society, harms its practitioner, and dishonors the Creator. It also demands respect and love for those who think or act differently from us in social, political, and religious matters. We must recognize the basic equality of all people: all discrimination is contrary to God's intent and must be overcome and eradicated.

Throughout its Pastoral Constitution, the Council returns time and again to Christ because, it says, God provides a full answer to human questions in Christ, so that whoever follows after Christ, the perfect human, becomes more human. Christ is the model and guide for all that we seek in social justice. He is the perfect human being, providing us with an example for our imitation. He taught us by his example to share in human community, revealing the human vocation in terms of the most common of social reality.

George Brenner Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:48 pm

Columba,

I have fallen often due to my misplaced anger at the failure of many in the Church to correctly implement the teachings of VCII. I love our Catholic Faith as do you, Columba but do you really believe that the the Blessed Trinity would or could allow the failure of Peter's faith over such a long period of time? Would this not be beyond the eternal design of the will of God for His creation and desire for Salvation for those of good will and a sincere heart to have membership in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church as founded by Jesus the second person of the Blessed Trinity? What great burden of mind and soul would fall on those that must try to prove that 'this and that ' parts of VCII are either wrong or worst yet in heresy. What good could Heaven deem appropriate from attacking Our Holy Father? What does God think of such efforts to dismantle official Church teaching? Who would protect and give authority to someone to be spokesman to deviate from what must be believed if even what is written may at many times be hard to comprehend or make personal sense out of? Who will make the personal entry in the book of life that it is a good thing that so and so came along to straighten out the Church? The failings in reverence, cover ups, lack of enforcement, erosion of the sacred respect due to our God are real and there is accountability BUT to attack the Church itself is very dangerous. We can and must speak out against abuse but let us be thankful for all the tremendous good and those people who are much more wise(MRyan) than us in the Church who should inspire us. Yes there are issues that those in the Church must help us with clarity but that will come with prayer not rock throwing. The SSPX MUST be reconciled on the terms of the will of God and not our terms.

My personal New Years resolution is to strive to do the right thing in the present moment ( as taken from one of Mother Angelica talks) It sounds nearly impossible to me to accomplish but this is my prayer and goal.

Your friend

JMJ,

George

columba Sat Dec 29, 2012 11:08 am

Mike, let me take your first post first concerning the papal oath.

My contention was that an oath, which was previously part of the formula of the papal coronation ceremony, has now been omitted.

In refuting the necessity of the presence of such an oath ensuring the validity of the rite of coronation, you use a reply by a member of the Legionaries of Christ, Father Edward McNamara. Apart from the fact that the good father is himself a living witness of the abominable condition of present-day seminaries (with his own Order being left in limbo since the revelation of the misdeeds of its founder), one would imagine that he would be on his guard and more inclined to take seriously the alegations of corruption in high places. His reply to the question posed him did not show evidence of an in-depth study of the matter but rather a superficial here-say/opinion-based reflection.

He did not establish if there was or wasn't in existance, prior to the new rite, an oath now omitted in the new rite. He disputes the fact that such an oath would add anything to the rite of coronation and actually implies that it would detract from the same by insisting (quite naively IMO) that God Himself, being bound by His own oath, does not require any corresponding commitment on the part of His Church and therefore it would be nothing more than an empty gesture on the part of the Church to bind the successor of Peter in any way with regards to the office he is taking upon himself.
Weird, weird thinking indeed.

Apart from all that, we do know for sure that the rite of coronation (or inauguration as it is now known) was tampered with. Nothing wrong with that you might say, but if we look at everything else, i.e, the sacraments which have gone through the same process of tampering, we can be quite sure that what has been changed has had a detrimental effect and a diminishing effect on the overall awareness of the significance of the rite itself. We know for sure also that the rite has been shortened; first by JPI and then further shortened by BXVI.

Another claim made by father is that sedevacantists use these changes in the rite of coronation to prove that the pope is not validly in office. This claim is false. The most that can be said is that sedevacanists combine this fact with many other such deviations from tradition so that cumulatively they amount to an invalid occupation of the Chair of Peter.

MRyan wrote:
..But, it is music to your ears..

Mike, You have this mistaken belief that I revel in the current desolationof the Church.
What WOULD be music to my ears would be a collection of statements issuing from Rome, in clear unequivocal language, reaffirming the unchangeable truths of the faith in those areas where confussion and ambiguity have wreacked havoc.
This would be not only the exercising of the duty of care the pope has towards his subjects, but the beginning of a return of trust of those same subjects who have been abandoned to the falible and dubiously reliable gurus of the internet.
Yep.. This is what one would expect of a true pope. If a pope were to act like a true pope I've no doubt he would be accepted by all as a true pope.

I'll continue later.

MRyan Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:47 pm

Columba wrote:

Mike, let me take your first post first concerning the papal oath.

My contention was that an oath, which was previously part of the formula of the papal coronation ceremony, has now been omitted.

In refuting the necessity of the presence of such an oath ensuring the validity of the rite of coronation,…

Precisely, and it my contention that there exists NO such “formula of the papal coronation ceremony”, least of which contains some sort of required “oath” by which the pope allegedly swears to God he will try not to fall into heresy and/or bind the universal Church to something other than that which is contained in the Deposit of Faith; otherwise stated as that which the Holy Spirit infallibly binds Himself to -- assisting and protecting the person of the Supreme Vicar.

Neither is there some sort of “necessity of the presence of such an oath ensuring the validity of the rite of coronation”, you simply made it up and suggest that without this alleged “oath” of dubious and unsubstantiated pedigree (the English version of which has been embellished/tampered with) the “coronation” would be “invalid”.

Don’t you get it, there is NO “coronation” if by this is also meant the bestowal or confirmation of Supreme temporal sovereignty. Furthermore, when one becomes pope upon consent to a proper election, the papal inauguration ceremony, with or without coronation, serves only symbolic purposes. And, as Pope JPII said "This is not the time to return to a ceremony and an object considered, wrongly, to be a symbol of the temporal power of the Popes."

The word “formula” connotes some sacramental-like requirement of matter and form that if corrupted or absent, nullifies the coronation or the powers of the pope he had already received when given the Keys (immediately by our Lord) upon his acceptance of the office.

You cannot produce trustworthy evidence of such an oath, let alone tell us what the “required formula” is, precisely; and in fact, Pope Leo XIII, for example, took no such oath (his inauguration ceremony was recorded). In fact, the “oath” so-oft cited by rad-trads and sede’s actually says:

I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_Oath_%28Traditionalist_Catholic%29#cite_note-14)

And here I thought revelation ended with the death of St. John the Apostle, but this “coronation oath” clearly suggests otherwise. And this is supposed to form a “part of the formula of the papal coronation ceremony” (which “has now been omitted”) “ensuring the validity of the rite of coronation”.

Wow, a “formula” for heresy that ensures “the validity of the rite of coronation”. Well, whatever the oath actually says, the pope is still “required” to say it, otherwise, his “coronation” is invalid, right, Columba?

What I am telling you is that the inauguration or installation ceremony is just that, a ceremony, which bestows no powers upon the pope he does not already possess. There is no necessary “oath” the pope can omit that can prevent the Holy Spirit from assisting and protecting him in the preservation and transmission of the deposit of faith.

The pope’s prayers and/or a solemn “oath” that he be worthy of the office is all well and good, but it doesn’t change his already assumed powers of Primacy and Spiritual authority. If, for example, the inauguration ceremony and Mass were to be cancelled due to an attack against the Vatican, the pope is still the pope and there is no, and never has been, some “necessary” oath he is required to take in front of His Cardinals or anyone else that “validates” his “coronation”.

All you have to do to refute my argument is to provide the proofs for your assertion that there is some Divine or Traditional “necessity of the presence of such an oath … which was previously part of the formula of the papal coronation ceremony … ensuring the validity of the rite of coronation”.

You will also have to tell us what you mean by “coronation” (universal temporal power?), and the words of “the necessary formula” that allegedly validate his “coronation”.

As Tornpage would say I am fond of saying, good luck with that.

Columba wrote:

In refuting the necessity of the presence of such an oath ensuring the validity of the rite of coronation, you use a reply by a member of the Legionaries of Christ, Father Edward McNamara. Apart from the fact that the good father is himself a living witness of the abominable condition of present-day seminaries (with his own Order being left in limbo since the revelation of the misdeeds of its founder), one would imagine that he would be on his guard and more inclined to take seriously the alegations of corruption in high places. His reply to the question posed him did not show evidence of an in-depth study of the matter but rather a superficial here-say/opinion-based reflection.

So now you resort to the cheap and fallacious “guilt by association” ploy where by the very fact that the article was written by a priest of the Legionaries of Christ, his testimony is somehow tainted. But if that wasn’t evidence enough against his scholarship, the priest is also a product of “the abominable condition of present-day seminaries” whereby we are to assume that if he had been a product of a pre-VCII seminary, he would not have been so bold as to challenge the alleged necessity of the “coronation oath".

If that wasn't bad enough, after the scandalous events surrounding the fall of the Superior of his order, one would think that Fr. McNamara "would be on his guard and more inclined to take seriously the allegations of corruption in high places", meaning, of course, the allegations of corruption against the popes who had the audacity to do away with the coronation ceremony.

Rubbish. What you failed to consider is that Fr. McNamara cites Wikipedia, for example, which in turn cites numerous other sources that reflect something considerably more than “a superficial here-say/opinion-based reflection”. Some of these sources cited by Wikipedia include:

• Vatican Archives
• Catholic Encyclopedia: Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum.
• Philip Schaff (1877). "Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical notes. Volume I. The History of Creeds". Retrieved 2007-02-26.)
• Notes by Garnier, reproduced in columns 41-42 of Patrologia Latina, 105
• Percival, Henry R. (1900). VII (Excursus on the condemnation of Pope Honorius). In Philip Schaff. "The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church". A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: Second Series (Christian Literature Company) 3: 352.
• Gladstone, William Ewart; Philip Schaff (1875). The Vatican Decrees in Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance: A Political Expostulation. Harper & brothers. pp. 98.
• Kurtz, Johann Heinrich (1889). Church History. John Macpherson. New York: Funk & Wagnalls. pp. 489.
• See "COUNCIL OF BASEL (1431-1445)". Eternal Word Television Network. Retrieved 2007-02-27.

It also provides the entire alleged oath (of dubious origins) in Latin as it is presented in the centuries long-abandoned Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum.

Also, see the entry on the “Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum”, New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09215c.htm.

The only “opinion-based reflection” is yours, Columba, for your flawed and factually incorrect argument "did not show evidence of an in-depth study of the matter, but rather a superficial here-say/opinion-based reflection."

Columba wrote:
Apart from all that, we do know for sure that the rite of coronation (or inauguration as it is now known) was tampered with. Nothing wrong with that you might say, but if we look at everything else, i.e, the sacraments which have gone through the same process of tampering, we can be quite sure that what has been changed has had a detrimental effect and a diminishing effect on the overall awareness of the significance of the rite itself. We know for sure also that the rite has been shortened; first by JPI and then further shortened by BXVI.

No, Columba, all we do know for sure is that the oft-cited alleged coronation oath has been tampered with, to the extent that the English version is heretical.

And, I do not know how to break the news to you, but the inauguration ceremony has been “tampered” with by various popes throughout the centuries, which is their right. In point of fact, the “coronation” ceremony, of medieval origins, has been dropped precisely because it gives the “overall” impression that the pope is crowned with full and immediate temporal sovereignty over all nations and governments, which is false. The "Jus publicum" does not a "coronation" of such sweeping temporal powers make.

And, if you wish to have that debate, just let me know and I will be happy to correct your false assumptions with indisputable facts, and not "hear-say".

Columba wrote:
Another claim made by father is that sedevacantists use these changes in the rite of coronation to prove that the pope is not validly in office. This claim is false. The most that can be said is that sedevacanists combine this fact with many other such deviations from tradition so that cumulatively they amount to an invalid occupation of the Chair of Peter.

Agreed, just as you “combine this fact with many other such deviations from tradition so that cumulatively they amount to an [questionably] invalid occupation of the Chair of Peter.”

Columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
..But, it is music to your ears..
Mike, You have this mistaken belief that I revel in the current desolation of the Church.

You revel in mocking the Church.

Columba wrote:
What WOULD be music to my ears would be a collection of statements issuing from Rome, in clear unequivocal language, reaffirming the unchangeable truths of the faith in those areas where confussion and ambiguity have wreacked havoc. This would be not only the exercising of the duty of care the pope has towards his subjects, but the beginning of a return of trust of those same subjects who have been abandoned to the falible and dubiously reliable gurus of the internet.

Yep.. This is what one would expect of a true pope. If a pope were to act like a true pope I've no doubt he would be accepted by all as a true pope.

In other words, when the pope starts acting like a “true pope”, by which you mean when he finally meets the demands of the false tradtionsialists who dictate to the Holy Father the limits to his Primacy and authority, and demand of him that the “concilar Church” convert and restore itself to the one true faith, only then will "trust” be restored and the pope will be accepted as, well, the pope.

Gosh, I don't know why the Pope does not accept such reasonable demands from his faithful sons.

The splinter groups such as the SSPX represent only a small minority (some of their complaints are legitimate), and do not represent the majority of theologians and of believers who have not been taken in by their false arguments. The fact that they scream the loudest about the “error” of religious freedom, for example, and that the teaching of a solemn ecumenical Council cannot, in their eyes, be reconciled with the Syllabus and tradition, is NOT the opinion of the majority of approved theologians and of orthodox Catholics, even if legitimate disagreement exists and even if the full meaning of DH has taken time to flower, precisely because it represents a development in doctrine and a certain discontinuity with an aspect of previous teaching (not affecting faith or morals).

But even this “flowering” is somewhat exaggerated if we are speaking of the Council’s infallible continuity with tradition. Most theologians and scholars accepted long ago that DH was fully reconcilable with tradition (on the essentials), and in fact, as I read elsewhere, “several Spanish theologians wrote about it [DH] immediately after the council; Fr. Eustaquio Guerrero S.J., fray Victorino Rodriguez O.P., et al. If you speak spanish, this blog (http://lalibertadreligiosa.wordpress.com/) is an outstanding resource about them (start from the first post).”

And, as I said in another thread, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus, in his article, “Doctrinal Development on Religious Liberty” sets forth the proper Catholic response to difficult magisterial teachings:

'Whenever we perceive a conflict or confusion between two Magisterial teachings, the proper approach demands that we recognize that the deficiency is in our own lack of perception, not in the truth of the Magisterial teachings. This lack of perception may consist in a misunderstanding of one or the other teaching because we have jumped to a conclusion about “what it must mean” without analyzing it with sufficient care to determine what it specifically requires us to believe. Or it may consist in a confusion of common theological opinion or even widespread Catholic practice with what the Magisterium actually teaches. Or it may simply consist in our own personal inability to perceive how two or more statements can be reconciled. For example, it took theologians centuries to understand how the Scriptural statements which emphasize Christ’s omniscience could be reconciled with His statements of apparent limitation, such as not knowing the time of the end of the world. Yet none of the Church Fathers held that some passages were true and others false.

'In any case, the proper attitude is one of acceptance of the Church’s Magisterium in all its manifestations, confident of their truth even when we do not wholly understand them. It is not possible to prefer the authority of one statement to another, if both are properly Magisterial, as if the Magisterium is protected from error in some eras but not in others. In the right spirit, therefore, one must lay out all the relevant statements and closely analyze what each says, striving to come to an understanding which admits the truth of all. (http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=447)

And, as he demonstrates, this apparent “conflict” was resolved for him long ago, when he “requested several scholars of noteworthy intelligence and unimpeachable orthodoxy to contribute articles reconciling the older Magisterial pronouncements on religious liberty with the newer teachings in Dignitatis Humanae at Vatican II.”

And as I also demonstrated, the two scholarly papers he recommends as “must” reading repeat in the main the crucial distinctions and facts highlighted by every single theologian I mentioned (many of which were cited) in my series of posts, and the fact is, there is no doctrinal discontinuity on matters of faith and morals between DH and tradition, not because I said so, but because it is a well documented fact.

The Vatican can explain this until they are blue in the face, and the SSPX simply will not accept the response of the mainstream theologians and of Pope Benedict XVI.

But, keep hiding behind the clerical garb of the SSPX and sedevacantists, Columba, but the fact remains that you are the one on the outside looking in as you cast your sarcastic stones that simply disintegrate upon contact with the Rock of truth.

MRyan Sat Dec 29, 2012 4:33 pm

Columba wrote:
Please list even one such teaching that remains consistent throughout the documents of VCII.

The very question presupposes that all of the teachings throughout the documents of VCII remain inconsistent, which, on the face of it, is absurd.

To take the most obvious example, since it has been the subject of recent debate, I have demonstrated that the doctrine of religious freedom remains consistent throughout the teachings of VCII, and with tradition (on essential matters of faith and morals). I provided proofs from Pope Benedict XVI and Pope JPI, and from numerous approved theologians, some of whom disagree on non-essential points and air these differences in print (constructive dialogue), but are unanimous in their belief that Dignitatis Humanae is reconcilable with tradition (on the essentials), to include the Syllabus. With respect to the latter, I also demonstrated the nature of the development and how it does in fact represent a certain “discontinuity” by way of a “hermeneutic of reform”, which is aptly summarized by Fr. Mullady, thus:

I would like to suggest that the religious freedom condemned in the Syllabus of Errors refers to religious freedom looked at from the point of view of the action of the intellect, or freedom respecting the truth; whereas the freedom of religion guaranteed and encouraged by Dignitatis Humanae refers to religious freedom looked at from the point of view of the action of the will in morals. In other words, those who see in these different expressions a change in teaching are committing the fallacy of univocity of terms in logic. The terms "freedom" refer to two very different acts of the soul.… Regardless of whether there is a state religion or not, both the Syllabus of Errors and Dignitatis Humanae present their teachings as universally and necessarily true. (Brian Mullady, O.P. (1994). "Religious Freedom: Homogeneous or Heterogeneous Development?". The Thomist 58: 93-108.

Dr. Art Sippo agrees:

While many of the documents were Pastoral Constitutions, there were 2 Dogmatic Constitutions: Lumen Gentium (On the Church in the Modern World) and Dei Verbum (On Divine Revelation) which were completions of the original work of Vatican I which had been interrupted by the Italian Revolution in 1870. If you look at the end of Lumen Gentium in the VCII document collection by Fr. Flannery, you will see that the CDF clearly stated that part of the document did represent authentic new teaching that was binding on the Church. Dei Verbum definitively settled a serious question on the proper way of interpreting the teaching of the Council of Trent on the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. Trent had not clarified whether we were dealing with two separate sources or one source in two forms. DV definitively settled the question in favor of the latter solution.

As regards Dignitatits Humanae (Declaration on Religious Liberty), it was NOT a Pastoral Constitution, but a declaration of teaching. This is a different kind of document. It is not a solemn definition but it is at least as definitive as an encyclical. The document reaffirmed previous Catholic teaching on the relationship between Church and State but definitely broke new ground. It defined for the first time the meaning of the "Public Order" and established that the just order in a state is inseparable from the objective moral order. The facile separation of "Public Order" from the "Common Good" postulated by some Catholic scholars was thereby rejected. There was also a clear apology for the excesses of the Inquisition and a recognition that the moral order requires that States organize their laws recognizing the dignity of the human person. This was all new. (http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/appendixd.html)

Dr. James Hitchcock adds:

Critics of Dignitatis Humanae read it as merely a concession to the modern secular state, the Church in effect surrendering to notions of tolerance which are at heart skeptical and relativistic. But the decree, besides emphasizing human dignity as the fundamental basis of freedom, also notes that the Church itself benefits from a regime of freedom, and it is this reality which critics overlook.

Continuing:

Columb wrote:
MRyan wrote:
In fact, in certain respects, VCII finished what VCI only began, particularly, for example, with respect to the divine Constitution of the Church (e.g., collegiality).
Really Mike? Do you think VCI would have ended with a Church that subsists within a church and, considering VCI's insistance on the absolute primacy of Peter do you think she would have then made a U turn and included all the bishops, stripping the Pope of his absolute primacy already declared earlier? To see VCII as some kind of a follow-on from VCI rather than a totally new council with totally new and different ideas and ideals does not tie in with reality.

You sarcasm knows no bounds as you continue to exhibit a profound ignorance of the ecclesia docens. The CDF, at the direction of Pope Benedict XVI, explained precisely why the Council used “subsists” when it infallibly declared that the Church of Christ, "subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him."

In the

“Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church,"… The document poses five questions, and the second one reads: "What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?" The answer is not surprising to those who understand the Latin meaning of subsist or know that the Church cannot change fundamental doctrine: " . . . ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church, in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth."

While acknowledging that "the churches [meaning the Eastern Orthodox] and ecclesial Communities [Protestants] not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church" have "elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them," the CDF reaffirms that "the word 'subsists' can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe . . . in the 'one' Church); and this 'one' Church subsists in the Catholic Church." Subsistence means "to remain in force, being, or effect," and only in the Catholic Church does the one Church founded by Christ "and instituted it as a 'visible and spiritual community'" subsist. (Scott P. Richert, http://catholicism.about.com/b/2007/07/17/what-is-the-church-the-church-of-christ-subsists-in-the-catholic-church.htm)

So, YES, Pope Pius IX would (and does) agree that VCII completed the original work of VCI, First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, with the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium).

With respect to the doctrine of collegiality, you again miss the Catholic mark by suggesting that the Council stripped the Pope of his absolute Primacy by allowing the bishops to share in this same Primacy, which is sheer nonsense, and heresy.

Rather than doing all the work (as usual), I challenge you to read the actual passages of Lumen Gentium (#’s 22 through 25, to include the “preliminary note of explanation” found at the end of the document “regarding the Modi bearing on Chapter III of the Schema de Ecclesia”), and to demonstrate where LG “made a U turn and included all the bishops, stripping the Pope of his absolute primacy already declared earlier”.

Never once does Lumen Gentium assign any supreme or universal infallible authority to the Bishops as a united body without direct reference to such authority being preserved “with Peter's successor”.

I categorically deny and denounce your false claim, and defy you to prove it. I don’t want to hear your usual charges of “ambiguity”, I want you to prove your accusation by the very words of the document themselves, which, I maintain, dogmatically say what they mean and mean what they say.

It’s time to put up or shut up.

MRyan Sat Dec 29, 2012 4:45 pm

RememberGethsemane wrote:Gee can't hear big boy Mike anymore. He was posting willy nilly on this topic for days then suddenly stopped. Let's hear the venom from him and accusations and bully tactics he uses when he comes back to defend the indefensible.

Surely, RG, you have something more constructive to add to this debate other than cheap shots and insults?

If my defense of the Church is so "indefensible", then it should be relatively easy to prove me wrong.

However, if you do not have anything to add except insults, then yes, by all means, stay out of the kitchen.

MRyan Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:28 pm

MRyan wrote:
It’s time to put up or shut up.

Figuratively speaking! Gaudium et Spes 490908

RememberGethsemane Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:16 am

MRyan wrote:
RememberGethsemane wrote:Gee can't hear big boy Mike anymore. He was posting willy nilly on this topic for days then suddenly stopped. Let's hear the venom from him and accusations and bully tactics he uses when he comes back to defend the indefensible.
Surely, RG, you have something more constructive to add to this debate other than cheap shots and insults?

If my defense of the Church is so "indefensible", then it should be relatively easy to prove me wrong.

However, if you do not have anything to add except insults, then yes, by all means, stay out of the kitchen.

Mike, you are accusing me of being insulting, that is a case of the proverbial pot calling the cauldron black ass, go read some of your own put-downs sometime. In the case of 'defending the church' you are not defending the true church in my opinion but a 'church' the saints prophecised and warned us against. So that is why I say 'defending the indefensible'. I highly respect your intellect and fervour but I instinctively feel it is misplaced somethimes. If I start sending you links quotes and essays we will be on a continuous cycle of splitting hairs and analysis. To me, when a priest bishop or pope promulgates something that defies Christ's teaching it is indefensible. Happy new year to you!

RememberGethsemane Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:36 am

And just to add to that Mike, Matthew 6:33 came into my head, 'Seek ye first the Kingdom of God..' I believe that is your full intention, so a lot will be given unto you.

Sponsored content