Timothy Gordon on Vatican 2

Started by Philip G., February 03, 2021, 10:12:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Philip G.



I don't often listen to this fellow, but I decided to click on a recent video of his on "why catholics cannot reject vatican 2".  Listen to 25:30 for about 45 seconds.  It is Gordon's take on the time bomb "subsistit in".  I have read all of the documents of the council, and I have read "time bombs of the second vatican council by Fr. Schmidberger.  And, my opinion is that the council must be rejected entirely, and that it cannot successfully be fixed.

Gordon's opinion is that "subsistence is the strongest form of existence".  He even says thomas aquinas backs him up on this(another nail in that coffin?).  Can anyone confirm that?  Fr. Schmidberger argued that subsistence implies that if the true religion subsists in the catholic church, what is to stop it from subsisting in a different church?  For. subsistence lends itself to such variance, hence the problem with the term. 

Another reason I bring this up is because this division of opinion among "traditionalists" is a perfect example of how damaging novel language can be, and why it must be rejected as one of the error's the council itself.  I no longer have my vatican 2 book, or time bombs, so I cannot go back and re read all of this before making this post.  So, this is going off on a bit of a limb, but I am quite certain this is inseparable from the MO of the council from my memory and experience.

From memory, generally speaking, the council would cite correct church teaching but with a caveat such as the novel language found above, then immediately after, it would allow or sympathize for the liberalism/opposite interpretation.  However, what would the caveat be among the liberal segment?  The caveat would be what we might call firm or unmistakable language. 

The result of this is that even if you want to claim continuity and try to make use of the traditional comments of the council, you are unable to do so as a result of the novel language such as "subsistit in".  It means that tradition can never be united behind the traditional seeming writings of the council, because they are not, which is why they must be rejected as well.  Likewise, the liberals are led on by the liberal jargon, but cannot escape the fact that it comes from a position of earthly authority, which at their extreme, they loath in itself.  For, they loath "organized religion". 
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12

Prayerful

Indeed, every document had an exception proving the rule get out. It meant Paul VI did not have to content himself with revisions to the Mass that the Congregation for Divine Worship envisaged thanks to traps sown in Sacrosanctum Concilium. It still had fine words about Gregorian chant and Latin, but in context those words were aspiration. A bishop could in circumstances change things, just exceptionally...... It might have seemed possible that the Hermeneutic of Continuity could be a Hermeneutic of Forgetting and V2 could be interpreted to sideline it, but Benedict was utterly timid in placing good bishops and wasn't exactly traditional himself. Now the only solution to V2 will be somehow to bin it. How this will happen will involve a miracle akin to the 'Miracle of the Sun' but V2 has to be discarded.
Padre Pio: Pray, hope, and don't worry. Worry is useless. God is merciful and will hear your prayer.

MaximGun

I can only come to 2 conclusions.

This cannot be walked back without lying to future generations about what happened at this period of time.  Of course they may lie, and get away with it. History can be controlled and spun.  We all know that. But that would be a lie.

God can allow this because the end of the world is near.   There won't be generations to be confused by it.

I don't subscribe to the microscopic Church idea. A universal Church, tasked to teach all nations has failed if it ends up with 0.001 of the world's population down from 1.5 billion 100 years before that.

The Catholic Church was never an exclusive club.

God could wipe out most people of course at start over but that is really just option 1.

Philip G.

#3
The ordered disorder of the council is what makes it so deadly.  The hermineutic of continuity could be made use of if the caveats were reversed, and if the overall order was reversed.  If the traditional sections were/are framed in unmistakable traditional language, and the liberal sections were/are framed in novel language, it can theoretically be salvaged/amended in the sense that the slate need not be whiped clean.  And, we would be even better off if the liberal junk came first, followed by the traditional interpretation.  But, this was not my takeaway from reading the documents.  I think a clean sweep is required, not only for lesser reasons, but for greater reasons.  We need to come around to the idea that popes and councils find their favor in the act of defining teaching, condemning heresies/errors, and decreeing laws, not dialoging/dialecting with us.

Gordon mentioned that there were a few councils that are good and legitimate where no teachings were defined and/or I presume heresies condemned, and/or laws decreed.  I think one of those three should be required for a council in my opinion.  Is it the case that there existed councils other than v2 where no heresies were condemned, laws decreed, and no teachings are defined?  And, which are they.  Thanks. 

For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12

King Wenceslas


When this whole mess is cleaned up by fire from the sky, who will even remember Gordon and his specious arguments.

Philip G.

#5
Quote from: King Wenceslas on February 05, 2021, 09:30:01 PM

When this whole mess is cleaned up by fire from the sky, who will even remember Gordon and his specious arguments.

I think the Aquinas reference should bring some here out of the woodwork.  Would Aquinas be in agreement over the use of the word subsist in?  Gordon says yes, what say the Aquinas disciples on this forum?  And, if Gordon is right in a sense that Aquinas exalts the use of the word subsist albeit not necessarily in the same context, are we not talking about something even greater than a temporal height?  It might be worth discussing. 
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12

Xavier

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/christs-church-subsists-in-the-catholic-church-3171

"As is well known this famous expression "subsistit in" was subsequently the object of many and contradictory interpretations. The notion became quite widespread that the Council had not wanted to adopt as its own the traditional statement according in which the Church of Christ is (est) the Catholic Church — as was stated in the preparatory schema2 — so as to be able to say that the Church of Christ subsists also in Christian communities separated from Rome.

In reality, however, an analysis of the Council proceedings leads to the conclusion that"[t]he phrase subsistit in is intended not only to reconfirm the meaning of the term est, that is, the identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church. Above all, it reaffirms that the Church of Christ, imbued with the fullness of all the means instituted by Christ, perdures (continues, remains) forever in the Catholic Church".3

This meaning of the term subsistit coincides with the common language of Western culture and is consistent with classical philosophical language from Aristotle to St. Thomas; that which exists in itself and not in something else is said to subsist.4

"Subsisting is a special case of being. It is being in the form of a subject standing on its own. This is the issue here. The Council wants to tell us that the Church of Jesus Christ as a concrete subject in the present world can be encountered in the Catholic Church. This can occur only once and the notion that subsistit could be multiplied misses precisely what was intended. With the word subsistit, the Council wanted to express the singularity and non-multiplicability of the Catholic Church".5

In this Document of the Council, the assertion of the subsistence of the Church of Christ in the Catholic Church is followed by the famous phrase about the presence of many elements of sanctification and truth, belonging to the Church, outside her visible structure.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, already in 1985, in the face of erroneous interpretations, made the following statement in this regard: " . . . the Council chose the word subsistit precisely in order to make it clear that there exists a single 'subsistence' of the true Church, while outside her visible structure only elementa ecclesiae exist, which — as elements of the Church — tend and lead toward the Catholic Church".6

More recently, the same Congregation declared: "The interpretation of those who would derive from the formula subsistit in the thesis that the one Church of Christ could subsist also in non-Catholic churches and ecclesial communities is therefore contrary to the authentic meaning of Lumen Gentium".7
Bible verses on walking blamelessly with God, after being forgiven from our former sins. Some verses here: https://dailyverses.net/blameless

"[2] He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice:[3] He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour: nor taken up a reproach against his neighbours.(Psalm 14)

"[2] For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man."(James 3)

"[14] And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; [15] That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Phil 2:14-15)

Christina_S

Quote from: Philip G. on February 03, 2021, 10:12:15 PM
Gordon's opinion is that "subsistence is the strongest form of existence".  He even says thomas aquinas backs him up on this(another nail in that coffin?).  Can anyone confirm that?  Fr. Schmidberger argued that subsistence implies that if the true religion subsists in the catholic church, what is to stop it from subsisting in a different church?  For. subsistence lends itself to such variance, hence the problem with the term.
I can't answer all the rest of your post, but my husband mentioned that "subsists" in theology does not have quite the same meaning in common parlance. We use it commonly to mean covering basic needs but not being complete. Not so in theology. Aquinas does say it, and here's the source: Summa Theologiae, I, q. 4, a. 2, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, New Advent, https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1004.htm#article2

Some pertinent points: "...God is existence itself, of itself subsistent" and "Since therefore God is subsisting being itself, nothing of the perfection of being can be wanting to Him."

Now for something that may get me shot: yes, the subsistit in line is pretty rough, but I hate when trads sensationalize this one and teach that everyone outside the Church is damned. There is some merit to be found in other Christian believers, and who knows about others. If we have 100% of the Truth and someone else only has 98% of the Truth, is he going to be sent to Hell for it? You'd think so, with the way some trads talk. Go ahead: hit me over the head with your extra ecclesiam nulla salus bat and call me a universalist (I'm not, for the record: people will definitely burn!).
"You cannot be a half-saint; you must be a whole saint or no saint at all." ~St. Therese of Lisieux

Check out the blog that I run with my husband! https://theromanticcatholic.wordpress.com/
Latest posts: Why "Be Yourself" is Bad Advice
Fascination with Novelty
The Wedding Garment of Faith

MaximGun

The problem Christina is that the Church carried on for years behaving as if EENS was a dogmatic truth.  And has now flipped 180 degrees from your middle of the road view. So someone somewhere at sometime was feeding people spiritual poison.

Flick

Quote from: MaximGun on February 07, 2021, 12:53:26 AM
The problem Christina is that the Church carried on for years behaving as if EENS was a dogmatic truth.  And has now flipped 180 degrees from your middle of the road view. So someone somewhere at sometime was feeding people spiritual poison.

C_S,

Push over, make some room for me on the wall.

I don't know the time span you are thinking about "that the Church carried on for years", but back in my grammar school years 1947-1955 the Dominican Sisters taught: the Three Baptism and if a nonCatholic would be saved it would be through the merits of the Catholic Church.  Of course it's academic now as as we all take the A Train to heaven.
". . . we will jealously protect the small but still burning candle of our traditional Catholic Faith, and patiently carry on our spiritual Resistance movement without the hoped-for papal approval." Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, August 15, 1967, Letter to Paul VI, www.latinmass-ctm.org/pub/archive.htm.

Miriam_M

Bishop Williamson goes into his interpretation of Vatican 2 in this teaching video about the Seven Ages of the Church:


He begins to talk about Vatican 2 at 33:30, but for the various ages, he draws from a German mystic whose work is easy to locate, but it's not quite on topic for this thread.

I've always had the same interpretation of V2 as what Bishop W says in this video.

King Wenceslas

Quote from: Flick on February 07, 2021, 08:18:59 PM
Quote from: MaximGun on February 07, 2021, 12:53:26 AM
The problem Christina is that the Church carried on for years behaving as if EENS was a dogmatic truth.  And has now flipped 180 degrees from your middle of the road view. So someone somewhere at sometime was feeding people spiritual poison.

C_S,

Push over, make some room for me on the wall.

I don't know the time span you are thinking about "that the Church carried on for years", but back in my grammar school years 1947-1955 the Dominican Sisters taught: the Three Baptism and if a nonCatholic would be saved it would be through the merits of the Catholic Church.  Of course it's academic now as as we all take the A Train to heaven.

Same was essentially said to me by a NO priest back in the 1980's. He had become a priest in the 1950's.

Philip G.

#12
Quote from: Christina_S on February 06, 2021, 04:13:55 PM
Quote from: Philip G. on February 03, 2021, 10:12:15 PM
Gordon's opinion is that "subsistence is the strongest form of existence".  He even says thomas aquinas backs him up on this(another nail in that coffin?).  Can anyone confirm that?  Fr. Schmidberger argued that subsistence implies that if the true religion subsists in the catholic church, what is to stop it from subsisting in a different church?  For. subsistence lends itself to such variance, hence the problem with the term.
I can't answer all the rest of your post, but my husband mentioned that "subsists" in theology does not have quite the same meaning in common parlance. We use it commonly to mean covering basic needs but not being complete. Not so in theology. Aquinas does say it, and here's the source: Summa Theologiae, I, q. 4, a. 2, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, New Advent, https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1004.htm#article2

Some pertinent points: "...God is existence itself, of itself subsistent" and "Since therefore God is subsisting being itself, nothing of the perfection of being can be wanting to Him."

Now for something that may get me shot: yes, the subsistit in line is pretty rough, but I hate when trads sensationalize this one and teach that everyone outside the Church is damned. There is some merit to be found in other Christian believers, and who knows about others. If we have 100% of the Truth and someone else only has 98% of the Truth, is he going to be sent to Hell for it? You'd think so, with the way some trads talk. Go ahead: hit me over the head with your extra ecclesiam nulla salus bat and call me a universalist (I'm not, for the record: people will definitely burn!).


If this is the case, then the bigger problem is that the word subsist is ambiguous as opposed to simply novel and liberal.  While the "one true religion" subsists in the catholic church, we as "trads" must be corralled into the thomistic arena of words with gordon an co. and be satisfied with "the strongest form of existence" theological dialect.  But, if and when(only a matter of time if we tolerate this magic) we find ourselves pressured/overgcome by a different religion such as perhaps with eastern orthodoxy, we can without difficulty justify our position by way of "common parlance".  Vatican 2 is truly a diabolical council, and this is the fifth pillar!  It functions to divide and enslave.  That is its end.  But, what is its beginning?  Its beginning has to do with language.  God confused the language of his enemies quantifiably, in order to divide them.  The devil confuses the language of the God's friends qualitatively in order to divide them.  To quote a respected medieval augustinian abbot regarding the scholastic dialectitians, "Thy grammar be with thee unto perdition".
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12

Philip G.

And Jesus said to them: Yea, have you never read?  Out of the mouth of infants and of sucklings thou hast perfected praise?  Mt 21,16
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12

Philip G.

#14
Quote from: Christina_S on February 06, 2021, 04:13:55 PM
There is some merit to be found in other Christian believers, and who knows about others.

I have said this before.  If you are in heaven, you have merits.  The opposite, which is becoming trendy in the catholic church as a result of louis de montfort, is the erroneous position in my opinion.  And, that is, that you can be in heaven without any merits.  De montfort considers this the "true" way/devotion.  Often times looking at the extreme opposite can be informative.  The extreme opposite is that we merit heaven on our own.  That is obviously false.  The double negative is the de montfort position.  I reject both.

For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12