Skinzo Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307936657' post='2253024'] Source: Allen, John L. (2005). Pope Benedict XVI: A Biography of Joseph Ratzinger. London: Continuum. p. 81. ISBN 0826417868. Afaik John Allen is generally considered to be more or less fair minded. Yes, the comment occurred before he was elected to the papacy. I mentioned earlier that this was likely the case, and I confirmed it just now by looking more closely. Unfortunately I don't have that book, however if you want to disprove me, you have the source. Now you may retract your comment that my previous post was "plainly wrong". As I have shown, it is no such thing. When I say in good company, it is pretty obvious that I am referring to the Pope. That was the entire point of that sentence. [/quote] That is only a secondary source, not a primary one. No, I will not retract it as you attributed criticism of Vatican II to Benedict XVI. That remains untrue, he has said nothing of the kind but has in fact cited Guadium et spes hundreds of times as pope but has made no criticism of it. S.
Nihil Obstat Posted June 13, 2011 Author Posted June 13, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1307937895' post='2253035'] That is only a secondary source, not a primary one. No, I will not retract it as you attributed criticism of Vatican II to Benedict XVI. That remains untrue, he has said nothing of the kind but has in fact cited Guadium et spes hundreds of times as pope but has made no criticism of it. S. [/quote] You said that my comment was clearly false. It is not. In fact it is more likely that you are incorrect. However, it most certainly is not "clearly false". Seeing as how I cannot go interview the Pope, we're gonna have to stick with secondary sources. Unless you've got a direct line to his office that you're holding out on... ETA: The fact that he has not recently criticized Gaudium et Spes does not imply that he never criticized it in the past. Logic fail. Edited June 13, 2011 by Nihil Obstat
Vincent Vega Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307938892' post='2253045'] You said that my comment was clearly false. It is not. In fact it is more likely that you are incorrect. However, it most certainly is not "clearly false". Seeing as how I cannot go interview the Pope, we're gonna have to stick with secondary sources. Unless you've got a direct line to his office that you're holding out on... ETA: The fact that he has not recently criticized Gaudium et Spes does not imply that he never criticized it in the past. Logic fail. [/quote] You seem to ignore the delineation, though, that he made the statements while he was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, not while he was Pope Benedict XVI.
Skinzo Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307938892' post='2253045'] You said that my comment was clearly false. It is not. In fact it is more likely that you are incorrect. However, it most certainly is not "clearly false". Seeing as how I cannot go interview the Pope, we're gonna have to stick with secondary sources. Unless you've got a direct line to his office that you're holding out on... ETA: The fact that he has not recently criticized Gaudium et Spes does not imply that he never criticized it in the past. Logic fail. [/quote] Thanks USAirwaysIHS, though I don't see how I could have been more clear. It is clearly false as you attribute criticism of Vatican II to BENEDICT XVI, the pope. Please cite any passages you are aware of in which Benedict XVI criticizes Vatican II. A primary source need only be the original article if such exists. I have yet to see it. Perhaps Cardinal Ratzinger's speech to the bishops of Chile will make clear Ratzinger's attitude towards the binding character of Vatican II. "Aside from the liturgical questions, the central points of conflict at present are Lefebvre's attack on the decree which deals with religious liberty, and on the so-called spirit of Assisi. Here is where Lefebvre fixes the boundaries between his position and that of the Catholic Church today. I need hardly say in so many words that what he is saying on these points is unacceptable". In the same speech he says: "It is a necessary task to defend the Second Vatican Council against Msgr. Lefebvre, as valid, and as binding upon the Church." Remarks to the Bishops of Chile, July 13, 1988 In any event, regardless of what you think all of us are bound by [size="2"]Can. 752. " While [u]the assent of faith is not required[/u], [u]a religious submission of intellect and will[/u] is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though [u]they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act[/u]. Christ's faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine."[/size] S. Edited June 13, 2011 by Skinzo
KnightofChrist Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 (edited) Pope Benedict has often spoken harshly against the false spirit of Vatican II. That spirit which has caused much damage and much confusion in the Church. Because of this damage criticism of Vatican II has been granted and allowed to clear up what Vatican II actually teaches and what it does not. The Holy See [url="http://frat.canalhistorique.free.fr/200609/Communique%20Bon%20Pasteur.htm?num=126344"]clearly did so on September 8, 2006[/url]. When the Holy See stated that 'the members of the Institute of the Good Shepherd [color="#696969"][[i]note this society was formed from priests who once were SSPX priests, so they will have the same/similar criticisms of Vatican II or it's correct interpenetration.[/i][/color][color="#696969"]][/color] may engage in a criticism of the Second Vatican Council that is serious and constructive and in accord with [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_roman-curia_en.html"]Pope Benedict's address of 22 December 2005 to the Roman Curia[/url], [[i][color="#696969"]a speech/document were Benedict rashly criticizes the false spirit of Vatican II[/color][/i][color="#696969"]][/color] while recognizing that it is for the Apostolic See to give the authentic interpretation of the Council. ' Edited June 13, 2011 by KnightofChrist
Nihil Obstat Posted June 13, 2011 Author Posted June 13, 2011 [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1307939293' post='2253049'] You seem to ignore the delineation, though, that he made the statements while he was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, not while he was Pope Benedict XVI. [/quote] I wasn't aware that he became a different person when he was elected pope. He criticized Gaudium et Spes as one of the highest ranking cardinals in the Church. I think that's clear enough, don't you? [quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1307943625' post='2253065'] Thanks USAirwaysIHS, though I don't see how I could have been more clear. It is clearly false as you attribute criticism of Vatican II to BENEDICT XVI, the pope. Please cite any passages you are aware of in which Benedict XVI criticizes Vatican II. A primary source need only be the original article if such exists. I have yet to see it. Perhaps Cardinal Ratzinger's speech to the bishops of Chile will make clear Ratzinger's attitude towards the binding character of Vatican II. "Aside from the liturgical questions, the central points of conflict at present are Lefebvre's attack on the decree which deals with religious liberty, and on the so-called spirit of Assisi. Here is where Lefebvre fixes the boundaries between his position and that of the Catholic Church today. I need hardly say in so many words that what he is saying on these points is unacceptable". In the same speech he says: "It is a necessary task to defend the Second Vatican Council against Msgr. Lefebvre, as valid, and as binding upon the Church." Remarks to the Bishops of Chile, July 13, 1988 In any event, regardless of what you think all of us are bound by [size="2"]Can. 752. " While [u]the assent of faith is not required[/u], [u]a religious submission of intellect and will[/u] is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though [u]they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act[/u]. Christ's faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine."[/size] S. [/quote] Are you suggesting that every iota of every document issued by Vatican II is entirely beyond criticism, even to the tiniest degree? Are you implying further that when Pope Benedict criticized Gaudium et Spes while he was a cardinal, that he was wrong to do so?
Jaime Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307931723' post='2252977'] Nobody is perfect. The trouble with the SSPX is that Archbishop Lefebvre's issue was was very public, and involved a great many people. In that particular area they are not great role models in my opinion, and I would not recommend that anybody does the same, however as we established, they are most certainly Catholic, and though I consider them lacking in one aspect of Traditionalism, I think that the sum of all the other aspects makes unavoidable the conclusion that they are traditionalists. They preach orthodox doctrines. They do not preach disobedience. [/quote] They don't preach disobedience Joe, they practice it. Anyone who practices disobedience will never adhere to Tradition.
Nihil Obstat Posted June 13, 2011 Author Posted June 13, 2011 [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1307980873' post='2253168'] They don't preach disobedience Joe, they practice it. Anyone who practices disobedience will never adhere to Tradition. [/quote] We consider them to be disobedient in one particular area. As you've seen though, they don't look at the position in the same way. As I established a few pages back, they saw it as an emergency situation which required unusual action. At the end of the day, Rome did not share their perspective, which is why the whole situation has lasted this long... However, it is not necessary that we consider their act of disobedience to be out of pride or a desire to cause discord.
Jaime Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307983156' post='2253189'] We consider them to be disobedient in one particular area. As you've seen though, they don't look at the position in the same way. As I established a few pages back, they saw it as an emergency situation which required unusual action. At the end of the day, Rome did not share their perspective, which is why the whole situation has lasted this long... However, it is not necessary that we consider their act of disobedience to be out of pride or a desire to cause discord. [/quote] Does it matter what they saw it as? No. Does it matter if it was out of pride? Nope. Does it matter that Rome did not share their perspective? Oh yes indeedy! Rome was not wrong. The Church is still not wrong. It is the SSPX that needs to assent their will, not Rome. Only those who are in full communion with Holy Mother Church can be considered to be Traditionalists. That's it. It's not opinion Joe. It's simply a fact that you have to accept. (this will be the time that you remind us that they are not in schism, aren't heretics, floss daily, etc)
Vincent Vega Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307983156' post='2253189'] However, it is not necessary that we consider their act of disobedience to be out of pride or a desire to cause discord. [/quote] I do, however, consider it to be out of pride. If Pope Benedict came up to me and said, "You need to state that you accept the Second Vatican Council," and I said "Uh, nah,", that would lead to a few options. Either I'm not Catholic, I'm heterodox (at best), or I'm prideful. Are there other options? I can't think of any. I don't understand why the SSPX won't just submit to the authority of the Pope and say, "Yep, we accept Vatican II." (Unless they either really do reject VatII, which I [i]hope [/i]is not the case, or they are blind with pride.)
Nihil Obstat Posted June 13, 2011 Author Posted June 13, 2011 [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1307984385' post='2253197'] Does it matter what they saw it as? No. Does it matter if it was out of pride? Nope. Does it matter that Rome did not share their perspective? Oh yes indeedy! Rome was not wrong. The Church is still not wrong. It is the SSPX that needs to assent their will, not Rome. Only those who are in full communion with Holy Mother Church can be considered to be Traditionalists. That's it. It's not opinion Joe. It's simply a fact that you have to accept. (this will be the time that you remind us that they are not in schism, aren't heretics, floss daily, etc) [/quote] As I said many times, I don't approve of the Econe consecrations, and I think it was the wrong choice. I think it was disobedient and not something to recommend to anybody. However, the situation is not so simple as "Pope John Paul said X and Marcel Lefebvre did Y." I said this before, he wasn't an idiot. He was anything but that. In the end he made the wrong choice, I think, but you're being difficult to insist that it is impossible to still call him a traditionalist because of a single very complicated situation. [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1307985129' post='2253205'] I do, however, consider it to be out of pride. If Pope Benedict came up to me and said, "You need to state that you accept the Second Vatican Council," and I said "Uh, nah,", that would lead to a few options. Either I'm not Catholic, I'm heterodox (at best), or I'm prideful. Are there other options? I can't think of any. I don't understand why the SSPX won't just submit to the authority of the Pope and say, "Yep, we accept Vatican II." (Unless they either really do reject VatII, which I [i]hope [/i]is not the case, or they are blind with pride.) [/quote] As I've already said, I don't believe they reject Vatican II entirely. I do think they criticize it more harshly than Rome is comfortable with, but criticism is not in and of itself disallowed.
Jaime Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307986131' post='2253211'] As I said many times, I don't approve of the Econe consecrations, and I think it was the wrong choice. I think it was disobedient and not something to recommend to anybody. However, the situation is not so simple as "Pope John Paul said X and Marcel Lefebvre did Y." I said this before, he wasn't an idiot. He was anything but that. In the end he made the wrong choice, I think, but you're being difficult to insist that it is impossible to still call him a traditionalist because of a single very complicated situation. As I've already said, I don't believe they reject Vatican II entirely. I do think they criticize it more harshly than Rome is comfortable with, but criticism is not in and of itself disallowed. [/quote] Nothing complicated. You're just rationalizing. It's very simple. They are not in full communion. Until they are you cannot call them Traditionalists. Its black and white. Here's another example A person can come and live in the US. They can abide by our laws. They can live here legally without being a citizen. They can be good citizens and pay taxes and build up our communities. They can in some cases fight for the US. But they CANNOT be considered patriots until they take an oath to do so. UNTIL the day (and I hope for that day) that Rome is assured of their allegiance to all the teachings of the Church INCLUDING Vatican II, they can celebrate mass, they can be Catholic but they cannot be considered Traditionalists. Because that is an affront to all Traditionalists who are obedient to the Church.
fides' Jack Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307986131' post='2253211'] As I've already said, I don't believe they reject Vatican II entirely. I do think they criticize it more harshly than Rome is comfortable with, but criticism is not in and of itself disallowed. [/quote] Perhaps criticism is not disallowed, but that doesn't mean it's not sinful.
MithLuin Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307944981' post='2253066'] Pope Benedict has often spoken harshly against the false spirit of Vatican II. That spirit which has caused much damage and much confusion in the Church. Because of this damage criticism of Vatican II has been granted and allowed to clear up what Vatican II actually teaches and what it does not. The Holy See [url="http://frat.canalhistorique.free.fr/200609/Communique%20Bon%20Pasteur.htm?num=126344"]clearly did so on September 8, 2006[/url]. When the Holy See stated that 'the members of the Institute of the Good Shepherd [color="#696969"][[i]note this society was formed from priests who once were SSPX priests, so they will have the same/similar criticisms of Vatican II or it's correct interpenetration.[/i][/color][color="#696969"]][/color] may engage in a criticism of the Second Vatican Council that is serious and constructive and in accord with [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_roman-curia_en.html"]Pope Benedict's address of 22 December 2005 to the Roman Curia[/url], [[i][color="#696969"]a speech/document were Benedict rashly criticizes the false spirit of Vatican II[/color][/i][color="#696969"]][/color] while recognizing that it is for the Apostolic See to give the authentic interpretation of the Council. ' [/quote] +1 Criticizing false interpretations of doctrine (whether from Vatican II or elsewhere) is not only appropriate, but called for. We as Catholics are supposed to defend the faith. As we all know, there's plenty of 'spin' and misinformation out there when it comes to our faith. The Truth will be made known with or without our help, but we can save people some pain and heartache by sharing the good news of the gospel with them earlier rather than later. It is of course important to keep in mind that the Apostolic See will 'give the authentic interpretation of the Council,' so deference must be made to clarifications that are made over time. For instance, false interpretations of 'No salvation outside the Church' have been called out on multiple occasions, and theologians who continue to repeat these false interpretations do so in error. Archbishop Lefebvre took part in Vatican II (along with the future Pope John Paul II), so his disagreements with the Council predated it, so to speak. He was [i]not[/i] happy that some of the documents he supported were not adopted and that some with more liberal language were. While the Council was still going on, his dissent was appropriate to his role in the Magisterium, but afterward...his ability to dissent 'faithfully' would be limited to criticizing implementation or interpretation - not the content of the documents themselves, or the validity of the Council, or the legitimacy of the pope. Such criticism, if left unchecked, could lead to someone stepping outside the Church. The disobedience over the ordinations was the severing point, but the way he [i]got[/i] to that point has a lot more to do with what is happening with the SSPX today. It wasn't over the Traditional Latin Mass (or rather, not solely or primarily over that) that he ran into trouble. The disagreements over the relationship between Church and State, the relationships between Catholics and Jews, etc, is more relevant to the issues of 'doctrine' that Rome would like to discuss with the current leadership of the SSPX. I'm not going to judge the SSPX based on their website. I don't know who approves the materials on it or how accurate it is meant to be (meaning...for all I know, it's just propaganda BS, and does not represent the views of leadership.) I'll allow Rome to judge whether or not their views of the Second Vatican Council and the Magisterium are compatible with calling oneself a faithful Catholic. If and when Rome welcomes the SSPX back home, so will I. Until that time, I will keep a respectful and (mostly silent) distance. I see nothing wrong with praying for unity, and consider it the most Christ-like suggestion for dealing with sad divisions in the Church. [quote]Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear. Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you. [i]Ephesians 4: 29-32[/i][/quote]
BG45 Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 [quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1307996690' post='2253283'] If and when Rome welcomes the SSPX back home, so will I. Until that time, I will keep a respectful and (mostly silent) distance. I see nothing wrong with praying for unity, and consider it the most Christ-like suggestion for dealing with sad divisions in the Church. [/quote] +1
Nihil Obstat Posted June 14, 2011 Author Posted June 14, 2011 [quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1307989987' post='2253252'] Perhaps criticism is not disallowed, but that doesn't mean it's not sinful. [/quote] Are you saying that all criticism of Vatican II, no matter how minor or specific, is inherently sinful? If I say "I think the wording here in Gaudium et Spes is rather ambiguous and leaves room for interpretations of rupture", is that sinful?
Jaime Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308018645' post='2253425'] Are you saying that all criticism of Vatican II, no matter how minor or specific, is inherently sinful? If I say "I think the wording here in Gaudium et Spes is rather ambiguous and leaves room for interpretations of rupture", is that sinful? [/quote] Seriously Joe if you could ask Cam the best way to answer my last post, I'd appreciate it.
Nihil Obstat Posted June 14, 2011 Author Posted June 14, 2011 [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308020431' post='2253438'] Seriously Joe if you could ask Cam the best way to answer my last post, I'd appreciate it. [/quote] Please stop being rude to me.
Jaime Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308021526' post='2253446'] Please stop being rude to me. [/quote] Please feel free to acknowledge my last point.
Recommended Posts