truthfinder Posted July 27, 2015 Posted July 27, 2015 (edited) Interesting. So, the Catechism is an expression of infallible teaching, but not infallible in itself? (Sorry to further derail the thread. I'll check out the article when I have more time.) That sounds about right. Also for example, the anathema statements from the Council of Trent are infallible, but the other discussions are not (which is a good thing; most of it's stayed the same, but there were certain regulations concerning priests that just wouldn't work today). I'm not sure that you understood the point I was trying to make… if the catechism is a magisterial document, then these words of Father Chad's apply to the catechism: "The Magisterium since Vatican II often ignores previous documents which may appear to be in opposition to the current teaching." But the catechism, while it may ignore previous documents which may appear to be in opposition to the current teaching (whatever that means), doesn't exactly ignore previous documents altogether. The catechism quotes previous documents extensively. To simplify what Father Chad was saying, as I understood it, VII documents AND "neo-conservatives" tend to ignore previous Church documents PERIOD. My apologies - I haven't read the article yet. Although, the catechism does quote previous writings/councils, etc, but you'll always find a trad who thinks it doesn't quote enough from the previous works (primarily Trent and Lateran). WOAH - totally off topic for a moment - but the last post was just combined by the phorum of two posts I had made separately! Neat function for keeping down post numbers AHHHH - it just did it again!!! Edited July 27, 2015 by truthfinder this phorum has got some mind-boggling features now
MarysLittleFlower Posted July 27, 2015 Posted July 27, 2015 After reading the article above, I have no idea what classification I fall under. I accept the magisterium of the Church in big things and small things and I accept all the Ecumenical Councils, the encyclicals of the previous Popes before Vatican II and afterwards, Scripture, etc. I'm sorry to say but it seems to me that Father Chad is making assumptions. Not everyone who likes Vatican II and accepts the current magisterium ignores previous Church teaching and Sacred Tradition… but to be completely honest, I'm not sure if he's saying that or not. It seems to me that he is. Isn't the Catechism a document of VII (kinda?) and isn't it actually full of quotes from documents way before VII? i don't think - personal opinion - that Father is talking about those who like the current Magisterium, but about those who don't care for anything that came before That sounds about right. Also for example, the anathema statements from the Council of Trent are infallible, but the other discussions are not (which is a good thing; most of it's stayed the same, but there were certain regulations concerning priests that just wouldn't work today). My apologies - I haven't read the article yet. Although, the catechism does quote previous writings/councils, etc, but you'll always find a trad who thinks it doesn't quote enough from the previous works (primarily Trent and Lateran). WOAH - totally off topic for a moment - but the last post was just combined by the phorum of two posts I had made separately! Neat function for keeping down post numbers AHHHH - it just did it again!!! I know I had the exact same reaction about the new posting feature :D
truthfinder Posted July 27, 2015 Posted July 27, 2015 (edited) i don't think - personal opinion - that Father is talking about those who like the current Magisterium, but about those who don't care for anything that came before Reminds me of a congregation of religious sisters I know. Lovely (habited) sisters who teach and I think -nurse and never expressed anything *strange* (although I've never gotten into a really deep theological discussion, but we did do scripture studies together), but did express that their community doesn't study anything written from before Vat II. Edited July 27, 2015 by truthfinder
Seven77 Posted July 27, 2015 Posted July 27, 2015 Reminds me of a congregation of religious sisters I know. Lovely (habited) sisters who teach and I think -nurse and never expressed anything *strange* (although I've never gotten into a really deep theological discussion, but we did do scripture studies together), but did express that their community doesn't study anything written from before Vat II. that's funny though… because I'm pretty sure that the Bible was written before Vatican II…
Ash Wednesday Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 that's funny though… because I'm pretty sure that the Bible was written before Vatican II… BOOM ROASTED
truthfinder Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 that's funny though… because I'm pretty sure that the Bible was written before Vatican II… I know - but all the commentaries and important theological discussions on the bible - so key to Catholic understanding of it, is not studied, unless written after the council.
Nihil Obstat Posted July 28, 2015 Author Posted July 28, 2015 I know - but all the commentaries and important theological discussions on the bible - so key to Catholic understanding of it, is not studied, unless written after the council. Not to mention some of the most important social teachings.
Maggyie Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I read the article but I couldn't shake the feeling that it was missing the point. All this navel-gazing, labeling etc. When there are only 2 Catholics left because we spent all our energy on this stuff, will they divide themselves into "factions"?
Nihil Obstat Posted July 28, 2015 Author Posted July 28, 2015 I read the article but I couldn't shake the feeling that it was missing the point. All this navel-gazing, labeling etc. When there are only 2 Catholics left because we spent all our energy on this stuff, will they divide themselves into "factions"? How does it miss the point?
Catlick Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Reminds me of a congregation of religious sisters I know. Lovely (habited) sisters who teach and I think -nurse and never expressed anything *strange* (although I've never gotten into a really deep theological discussion, but we did do scripture studies together), but did express that their community doesn't study anything written from before Vat II. Try finding contemporary Catholic clergymen who dare quote the pre-Vaticanum II theologians/Popes/Councils on the necessity of the conversion of the Jews...
Maggyie Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 How does it miss the point? I doubt Father became a priest in order to spend tons of time defining the relative conservativism of 2 virtually identical groups of Catholics. There is an extremely urgent situation developing in the Western world which needs everyone's full efforts. Fathers commentary will only be read by Catholics. If he would like to still have readers 50 years from now I think he should refocus. Note all the times Jesus uses the word magisterium. This isn't to say the magisterium and its interpretation are not important. But it's not the point. Jesus is the point of all that. If we are spending our energy trying to find differences between 2 extremely similar groups eventually there will not be anyone left to care. The unchurched and unbaptized are often scandalized and confused by efforts like Fathers's. The two groups he defines have the same creed, baptism, hierarchy, sacraments, devotions etc. We look silly to the pagans when we twist ourselves in knots balkanizing they Church, not just into liberals and conservatives but finer gradations of the two. Not to mention the word "neoconservative" is not a Catholic term, it is imported from a 20th century American political movement. In context, the opposite of "neoconservative" is not "traditionalist," it's "paleo-conservative." since the church is not an American political movement it's inappropriate to try to apply these meaningless labels to her.
Nihil Obstat Posted July 28, 2015 Author Posted July 28, 2015 Yeah, but the entire point of the article is that the labels are not meaningless, and that only one represents authentic Catholicism in its fullest sense. And that the loss of this distinction is a major part of the current crisis.
Anomaly Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Gotta strain those gnats out. Who wants to drink bugs in their wine?
Catlick Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 If we are spending our energy trying to find differences between 2 extremely similar groups eventually there will not be anyone left to care. The unchurched and unbaptized are often scandalized and confused by efforts like Fathers's. The two groups he defines have the same creed, baptism, hierarchy, sacraments, devotions etc. We look silly to the pagans when we twist ourselves in knots balkanizing they Church, not just into liberals and conservatives but finer gradations of the two. The unchurched and unbaptized are generally unaware of Traditionalists (one of the two groups mentioned by Fr. Chad) even existing. They know about liberals who criticize the contraception ban, they know about conservatives coming to the defense of the Vatican's voice. Anything that's on the right of how the Vatican currently speaks, is simply off the radar, like I guess orthodox Marxist critics of the regime are in North Korea. By the way, Balkanizing the Church - didn't the Church Fathers do the same by waging theological war on heretics? These heretics presented a theology that seemed a slightly different shade of orthodoxy, but the Church Fathers knew what was down the road, i.e. complete apostasy. Isn't that basically what has happened in the 20th century, with many a Modernist theologian confessing the creed and the sacraments but ending up a complete apostate? The Church would greatly profit from another round of heresy hunting a la Pius X.
Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) Ecclesiastical tradition comprises all of those things that are not intrinsic to the Deposit of Faith but which form the heritage and patrimony of the work of previous generations graciously passed on by the Church to subsequent generations for their benefit. Because it is extrinsic to the Deposit of Faith, ecclesiastical tradition is also called extrinsic tradition, examples of which include the Church’s disciplinary code as set out in canon law and non-infallible teachings of the ordinary Magisterium. This would include such things as those contained in apostolic exhortations and encyclicals in which infallibility is not enjoyed – such as, for example, when Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei asserts that the Church is a perfect society. So the ordinary magesterium can teach non-infallibly? amesome article so far. Edited July 28, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye
MarysLittleFlower Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Try finding contemporary Catholic clergymen who dare quote the pre-Vaticanum II theologians/Popes/Councils on the necessity of the conversion of the Jews... Our parish does the traditional prayers for their conversion but its FSSP.. Reminds me of a congregation of religious sisters I know. Lovely (habited) sisters who teach and I think -nurse and never expressed anything *strange* (although I've never gotten into a really deep theological discussion, but we did do scripture studies together), but did express that their community doesn't study anything written from before Vat II. I always wonder why people come to have this view.. I mean I don't know why the Sisters only read the new documents. But there is a lot pre V2 that is extremely useful
Nihil Obstat Posted July 28, 2015 Author Posted July 28, 2015 Nobody ever said otherwise Tab. Thank you for once again demonstrating your utter lack of understanding of that issue.
CrossCuT Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Gotta strain those gnats out. Who wants to drink bugs in their wine? Is this the TL:DR version of what Nihil posted?
KnightofChrist Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) Is this the TL:DR version of what Nihil posted? Not an accurate one. Edited July 28, 2015 by KnightofChrist
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now