Friday, February 20, 2015

The issue is still doctrinal.Use an irrational premise and any Church document will emerge non traditional and irrational



February 19, 2015


Pope Benedict XVI and the SSPX

 



 

 
Patty said...
Actually, the SSPX could have come in under Benedict as you indicate, but would have had to formally accept in total all of VII statements - to include the ambiguous portions even now being pointed out as requiring clarification by +Schneider. The very same compromise formulas being used by +Kasper.

But, knowing that they cannot stay quiet about the necessary clarifications needed in VII documents, they could not in good conscience sign a document stating that they entirely agree with that which has been the doorway to so much of what is ailing the Church.

Would you prefer the Society to lie about these problems within VII and just break their word later in speaking out against them? Or would you rather they not speak out against them and let issues fester to the detriment of others because they are okay in their own prelature?

These are the very compromise formulas that are endemic within Vatican II. The very same +Kasper admits to being there and the very same he and others are using to do precisely what is complained of- and rightfully so - on Julie's blog.

This is the crisis in the Church. And why there is so much confusion about 'what's going on?' so much so that faithful Catholics are nearly blacking out from all of the head spinning barrel rolls.

http://www.churchmilitant.tv/archive/index.php?select=vort-2013-07&vidID=vort-2013-07-12-a


The above video is yet another reason why folks like Louis Verrechio are rightfully chagrined at Michael's seeming new penchant for name calling. And yet if +Burke rejects any anticipated shenanigans that very well could happen at the next Synod, would he then brand +Burke as encouraging people to leave the Church... or of being reactionary?

Cardinal Walter Kasper made a stunning statement in the pages of L'Osservatore Romano. In offering some reflections on the challenges facing the Church and the continued (perpetual) problem of the "true implementation of Vatican II", Kasper, speaking with reference to the documents of the Council, stated:

"In many places, [the Council Fathers] had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception in either direction." (Cardinal Walter Kasper, L'Osservatore Romano, April 12, 2013)

In the Cardinal's statements, we basically have an affirmation of a fundamental thesis of Michael Davies and most Traditionalists: that the Council documents themselves have ambiguities in them and are subject to a multitude of interpretations. This concept of Conciliar ambiguity has been denied by many conservative/pop apologists, who insist that the Council documents are plain as day and it is only the malice of dissenters pushing a false implementation that is responsible for our current confusion.

Traditionalists, however, and ironically, Kasper, too, have insisted, however, that the destruction that followed the Council can be read back into the documents themselves. Even if the Council Fathers did not intend for the disaster that followed the Council (and most agree they did not), the documents themselves were constructed in such a way as to permit progressive interpretations when put into the hands of progressive theologians or bishops. Contra the conservative mantra of "perfect documents - imperfect implementation", Kasper affirms the Traditionalist critique of "imperfect documents lead to imperfect implementation." Benedict XVI had made the same point. There is an intimate connection between the documents and their implementation.

Please, Julie, try to understand the whole of an issue before making unfair and inaccurate proclamations.
February 20, 2015 

 __________________________________
Actually, the SSPX could have come in under Benedict as you indicate, but would have had to formally accept in total all of VII statements - to include the ambiguous portions even now being pointed out as requiring clarification by +Schneider. The very same compromise formulas being used by +Kasper.

Lionel:
Cardinal Kaspar and Bishop Schneider use the Marchetti Inference and so Vatican Council II is ambigous. Omit the irrational premise and the Council changes.
___________________

But, knowing that they cannot stay quiet about the necessary clarifications needed in VII documents, they could not in good conscience sign a document stating that they entirely agree with that which has been the doorway to so much of what is ailing the Church.
Lionel:
They are interpreting Vatican Council II with Marchetti's irrationality. So their bishops, theologians and priests are still part of the problem. They do not have the solution yet even though it is there before their eyes
.
______________________

Would you prefer the Society to lie about these problems within VII and just break their word later in speaking out against them? Or would you rather they not speak out against them and let issues fester to the detriment of others because they are okay in their own prelature?
Lionel:
When the premise is not used Vatican Council II changes. The inference used from 1949 changes the meaning of the text.
_________________________

These are the very compromise formulas that are endemic within Vatican II...
 

Lionel:
If Cardinal Kaspar knows that the Council is traditional without the Marchetti mistake wold he announce it in public ? Would Cardinal Muller do the same? Cardinal Muller and Archbishop Di Noia informed La Stampa that in an agreement with the SSPX there would be nothing to violate good relations with the Jews ( of the Left).Now how can he say that the Council is pro-Fr.Leonard Feeney ?
____________________

This is the crisis in the Church. And why there is so much confusion about 'what's going on?'...
The above video is yet another reason why folks like Louis Verrechio are rightfully chagrined at Michael's seeming new penchant for name calling...

Lionel:
Verrecchio and Voris use the same irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council.
Voris also says outside the Church there is no salvation but never refers to 'the dogma'.He stays clear of theology.Why? Also for good relations with...?
_________________________

Cardinal Walter Kasper made a stunning statement in the pages of L'Osservatore Romano...

Lionel:
The compromise was made in 1949 and he will not talk about it.Sadly, even the SSPX is ignorant.
______________________

In the Cardinal's statements, we basically have an affirmation of a fundamental thesis of Michael Davies and most Traditionalists...

Lionel:
Michael Davis, like Archbishop Lefebvre overlooked the Marchetti Inference.It was an oversight. The liberals in Boston took advantage of this
.
______________________

Traditionalists, however, and ironically, Kasper, too, have insisted, however, that the destruction that followed the Council...
Lionel:
It must be read in the false premise used in the interpretation.
___________________

when put into the hands of progressive theologians or bishops.
Lionel:
Also traditionalist bishops and priests.
_____________________

Contra the conservative mantra of "perfect documents - imperfect implementation"...
Lionel:
The documents without the premise are traditional. We now have in general an irrational interpretation of Vatican Coouncil II which has been implemented.
______________________

Please, Julie, try to understand the whole of an issue before making unfair and inaccurate proclamations
.Lionel:
The issue is still doctrinal.Use an irrational premise and any Church document will emerge non traditional and irrational.
-Lionel Andrades

 
February 20, 2015
This is not Catholic doctrine.It is a false doctrine that the SSPX has to accept 

No comments: