Obedience to Vatican II…disobedience to Francis

[Aethel]

https://onepeterfive.com/jews-elder-brother-catholics/

Man one of the things that made me kind of take a break from Catholicism is stuff like this.

How do people like in the article above compartmentalize stuff like this? Worse, if you are intellectually honest with yourself, how does stuff like the above not drive you crazy?

Part of the reality of living in 2023 is the use of technology and using contemporary forms of media, which includes the internet and media that is published online by adherents of the religion if you want to follow that religion. But in the case of Catholicism, I was constantly exposed to media like this that felt constantly, intellectually frustrating.

This article is such a caricature that I just have to share it and mock it.

Priests will embrace novel ideas of Vatican II like the idea that "The Jews are our elder Brothers" or "the Orthodox Christians are our sister church" or "The God of the Old Testament is not the same as the God in the New Testament and Moses worshipped the Jewish God, and that every Monotheist worships the same God"

They will do this in contradiction to previous Magisterial teaching like Mortalium Animos, Pascendi, Florence, Fourth Lateran, all of Denzinger basically, all of the Classic Church Fathers including Aquinas.



Yet they will have the nerve to constantly disparage this Pontiff in a very child like manner, pontificating themselves on grandiose theories of cosmological warfare and intricate complex schemes that Terminator machines couldn't come up with to justify their position, in flagrant disobedience to contemporary Ordinary Magisterial authority.
Here's a priest who was so disobedient to his superiors by believing in his own nonsensical worldview to the point that the Church censured him, disobeying the Magisterium, yet he still will have the sheer audacity to paternalistic repeat Vatican II talking points and ideas that also contradict the Magisterium.

And I get that nobody is perfect, but this inconsistency is present in the Catholic world everywhere. Even most trads in media online will recognize the Sainthood of Pope John Paul II and Pope Paul VI.


I also think that Catholic media continues to decline in quality with each passing year.


Does any "brother" relate?

[Aethel]

My point is how do you people do it?

[james03]

My point is how do you people do it?

If "you" refers to neo-Catholics, the answer is cognitive dissonance.

If "you" refers to Trads, we became Trads and refused to accept contradictions.

[Stubborn]

My point is how do you people do it?

There are a number of things we do, for me, one of the things I do is *not* (or very rarely) read or listen to Catholic blogs by laymen. And when reading an article, the first major error I come to is usually enough for me, I stop right there most of the time no matter who wrote it.

Priests will embrace novel ideas of Vatican II like the idea that "The Jews are our elder Brothers" or "the Orthodox Christians are our sister church" or "The God of the Old Testament is not the same as the God in the New Testament and Moses worshipped the Jewish God, and that every Monotheist worships the same God"

They will do this in contradiction to previous Magisterial teaching like Mortalium Animos, Pascendi, Florence, Fourth Lateran, all of Denzinger basically, all of the Classic Church Fathers including Aquinas.

The reason the priests et al embrace such heresies is because they believe V2 was an infallible council - where even the definition of "infallible" took on a new meaning. Since V2 it means whatever the pope and bishops teach, whether all together in a council or dispersed throughout the world, is infallible. This means whatever was taught by whomever prior to V2 is really nothing more than yesterdays headlines and a memory they strive to erase, except when they want to pull this or that out as a reference to show they're in line with tradition.

   

[Jean Carrier]

My point is how do you people do it?

I'm a sedevacantist, so it's basically like hearing about what's going on in the Anglican Church lol. Doesn't matter much to me. I'm more worried about the remaining Catholic bishops (SSPX bishops included) getting their behinds in gear. It is crucial that an Imperfect General Council be held, the Holy See legally declared vacant, and the current vacancy ended in a conclave by whichever electors the imperfect general council appoints. Constance II basically.

That said, it used to drive me bonkers when I was a semi-trad, yes. Drove me to apostasy a handful of times. Eventually God's grace helped me see better how the pieces fit.

[Julio]

During the time when the first Christians were persecuted by Emperor Nero, there were many of them who turned their backs against Catholicism. Eventually, many who submitted to paganism manifested to be back in the true faith. The apologetics rejected them but the Pope welcomed them to be back in faith because the Church continue to forgive. The Feast of those Christian Martyrs who died during the time of Nero, is June 30.

The diabolic is just around so the division goes on. But the Catholic Church shall withstand. This Vatican II issue is nothing new in the rosary of crisis of Catholicism. Hold on to Jesus, remember the works of the Apostolic Fathers and emulate the ways of the Saints, and you will not go wrong. True obedience it is.

[Aethel]

The reason the priests et al embrace such heresies is because they believe V2 was an infallible council - where even the definition of "infallible" took on a new meaning. Since V2 it means whatever the pope and bishops teach, whether all together in a council or dispersed throughout the world, is infallible. This means whatever was taught by whomever prior to V2 is really nothing more than yesterdays headlines and a memory they strive to erase, except when they want to pull this or that out as a reference to show they're in line with tradition.

   

I guess Neo-Catholics - in fact most people - don't really think through what their own belief system implies.

If you hold a belief system like ^ the above, what that really means is that the Catholic Church cannot possibly, logically teach the same thing, even in the same spirit, as Jesus Christ did; if a Pope can come in and just make up whatever he wants, what is the point of the Gospel, or even the Bible? What is the point of Ecumenical Councils, of heresy? How can you possibly excommunicate anybody, when the Church could simply be wrong on the standards on which they excommunicate people?

Sure, the Catholic Church never really taught the exact same thing consistently and practiced the exact same way, but John Henry Newman's Development of Doctrine at least elaborated that developments in doctrine / praxis, if they don't contradict, show a continuity back to Christ even if things change. Sure, the Popes themselves may have contradicted themselves on some points - for example, Usury and Heliocentrism - but the former you could at least have plausible deniability to a cognizable degree that circumstances necessitated the change, but the spirit of the doctrine is the same; Heliocentrism is bigger, you could say that scientific cosmology isn't part of the Deposit of Faith.

Obviously evolution is a bigger issue, but that's a whole other discussion.

For me, these changes in doctrine are so flagrant the Church might as well be openly worshipping Shiva.

[Stubborn]

I guess Neo-Catholics - in fact most people - don't really think through what their own belief system implies.

If you hold a belief system like ^ the above, what that really means is that the Catholic Church cannot possibly, logically teach the same thing, even in the same spirit, as Jesus Christ did; if a Pope can come in and just make up whatever he wants, what is the point of the Gospel, or even the Bible? What is the point of Ecumenical Councils, of heresy? How can you possibly excommunicate anybody, when the Church could simply be wrong on the standards on which they excommunicate people?
[...]
For me, these changes in doctrine are so flagrant the Church might as well be openly worshipping Shiva.

Well said and yes, that is exactly what it means. The decades prior to V2 was a time the enemy set out to spread the wrong idea of the Church's infallibility, V2 used that wrong idea to it's advantage to get otherwise faithful Catholics to abandon the true faith for the new faith in the name of obedience aka "Because they're infallible, we have got to do whatever the popes, bishops and priests tell us." 

So wide spread and efficient was the lie that it still works to this day even among many trads, including many trad clergy - who *should* know better.
+ABL put it best imo: "After all of these liberal ideas have been infiltrated into the seminaries, the catechisms and all the manifestations of the Church..."

The heck of it is, the conciliar popes and bishops themselves actually believe this, which explains why they are so bold in their disdain for all things traditional, all things holy, and so gung ho for all things NO - such is the "Spirit of the Council" they adhere to.

[Miriam_M]

As is often true on traditionalist discussion boards, premises can create and sustain false arguments when the premises themselves are false.  Vatican 2 did not "command" anything of the laity, while it could be said that indirectly, it "commanded" obedience [to something, however ambiguous] of the bishops.  Only a command assumes an exclusive choice.  It would not be possible for it to have commanded, of the universal church, a change in belief from the deposit of faith handed down by the apostles (i.e., Tradition) because whatever is not consistent with Tradition is by definition not infallible.  (More on that in a separate thread, which I'll probably post on the SV subforum.)

In the meantime, this penetrating but simple and clear analysis by Fr. Phil Wolfe disrupts the standard explanation typically offered by any of us for the birth of the Second Vatican Council and its dominance in American Catholic parishes over the last 60 years.  The sermon, appropriately on the Feast of Christ the King, begins the discussion about the latter point at 5:30, after an introduction about the chastisements to ancient Israel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apoqGRyLIrk&list=PLnb8xV4MiSnONIcsOEfHkPZm-oTkfWKnF&index=51

[Jean Carrier]

Insofar as Vatican II claims to be an act of the authentic (ordinary) magisterium, it does in fact command you to adhere to certain propositions with a religious submission of intellect and will.

It is correct that Vatican II doesn't command you to, say, pray with Protestants; that's a function of discipline rather than teaching. The disciplinary decrees and norms that followed Vatican II do, however, in fact command all Catholics to participate in ecumenism and the NO. If opting out was an option the SSPX wouldn't have been "excommunicated".

And before you call me a dirty laymen who isn't allowed to use my brain, the vast majority of conciliar "priests" and "bishops" agree with and teach what I said above. So citing a handful of FSSP "priests" is unavailing as an appeal to authority, provided that the hierarchy of the Conciliar church is the hierarchy of the Catholic Church (which I deny).

[Miriam_M]

Insofar as Vatican II claims to be an act of the authentic (ordinary) magisterium, it does in fact command you to adhere to certain propositions with a religious submission of intellect and will.

ONLY for that which adheres to Tradition.  The authentic understanding of infallibility is that it protects the permanent deposit of faith.  It does not protect novelty, let alone command obedience to novelty. Nor does it permit, bless, protect, and bind the invention of dogma by a single man (including the pope) or group of men which opposes the permanent deposit of faith handed down by the apostles and enshrined as dogma.  Otherwise, Tradition is impotent and meaningless, being nothing more than sentiment and preference of style and in some helpless competition with endlessly changeable new sets of attractive propositions originating from anywhere (i.e., Protestantism).

Any other interpretation is a gross misunderstanding of the concept of infallibility and its legitimate operation within the Church, as explained here:

https://www.veritascaritas.com/podcast/the-road-to-the-dubia-role-of-the-magisterium-part-2/

[Jean Carrier]

We're not talking about infallibility, but the authentic (ordinary) magisterium. Such teachings are fallible but still authoritative and owed assent, just not the assent of faith.

This is pretty basic stuff you can find in any treatise on Ecclesiology. Many of them can be found for free online, such as Scheeben's Dogmatik or Book I of the Sacrae Theologiae Summa. St. Robert Bellarmine also touches on it in De Romano Pontifice. Heck, even Vatican II lays it out with uncharacteristic clarity in LG.

We can also examine the doctrine of the Popes who have addressed the issue:

104. Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.

[CONDEMNED PROPOSITION:]28. If the pope with a great part of the Church thought so and so, he would not err; still it is not a sin or heresy to think the contrary, especially in a matter not necessary for salvation, until one alternative is condemned and another approved by a general Council.

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

[CONDEMNED PROPOSITION:]22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church.

By certain indications it is not difficult to conclude that among Catholics – doubtless as a result of current evils – there are some who, far from satisfied with the condition of "subject" which is theirs in the Church, think themselves able to take some part in her government, or at least, think they are allowed to examine and judge after their own fashion the acts of authority. A misplaced opinion, certainly. If it were to prevail, it would do very grave harm to the Church of God, in which, by the manifest will of her Divine Founder, there are to be distinguished in the most absolute fashion two parties: the teaching and the taught, the Shepherd and the flock, among whom there is one who is the head and the Supreme Shepherd of all.

To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor. In this subordination and dependence lie the order and life of the Church; in it is to be found the indispensable condition of well-being and good government. On the contrary, if it should happen that those who have no right to do so should attribute authority to themselves, if they presume to become judges and teachers, if inferiors in the government of the universal Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path.

And to fail in this most holy duty it is not necessary to perform an action in open opposition whether to the Bishops or to the Head of the Church; it is enough for this opposition to be operating indirectly, all the more dangerous because it is the more hidden. Thus, a soul fails in this sacred duty when, at the same time that a jealous zeal for the power and the prerogatives of the Sovereign Pontiff is displayed, the Bishops united to him are not given their due respect, or sufficient account is not taken of their authority, or their actions and intentions are interpreted in a captious manner, without waiting for the judgment of the Apostolic See.

Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.

The 1983 Code of Canon Law also commands this assent:

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

Can. 754 All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.

Notice how I'm citing approved Catholic authorities (barring the post-58 stuff), not the opinions of individual priests.

[awkward customer]

Anyone doubting the authority of Vatican II should consider that Vatican II is everywhere in the Conciliar Church.

Vatican II has driven true Catholicism out of every formerly Catholic parish, seminary, school, monastery, convent - in the world.  Trads might have their own tiny, yes tiny, enclaves, but the Conciliar Church teaches Vatican II, worships according to Vatican II and practically lives and breathes Vatican II.

And yet people claim that Vatican II has no authority!  Please stop.  Vatican II is the authority. 

Aethel, I agree with you.  Sometimes the contradictions are too much to take.   

[Baylee]

https://onepeterfive.com/jews-elder-brother-catholics/

Man one of the things that made me kind of take a break from Catholicism is stuff like this.

How do people like in the article above compartmentalize stuff like this? Worse, if you are intellectually honest with yourself, how does stuff like the above not drive you crazy?

Part of the reality of living in 2023 is the use of technology and using contemporary forms of media, which includes the internet and media that is published online by adherents of the religion if you want to follow that religion. But in the case of Catholicism, I was constantly exposed to media like this that felt constantly, intellectually frustrating.

This article is such a caricature that I just have to share it and mock it.

Priests will embrace novel ideas of Vatican II like the idea that "The Jews are our elder Brothers" or "the Orthodox Christians are our sister church" or "The God of the Old Testament is not the same as the God in the New Testament and Moses worshipped the Jewish God, and that every Monotheist worships the same God"

They will do this in contradiction to previous Magisterial teaching like Mortalium Animos, Pascendi, Florence, Fourth Lateran, all of Denzinger basically, all of the Classic Church Fathers including Aquinas.



Yet they will have the nerve to constantly disparage this Pontiff in a very child like manner, pontificating themselves on grandiose theories of cosmological warfare and intricate complex schemes that Terminator machines couldn't come up with to justify their position, in flagrant disobedience to contemporary Ordinary Magisterial authority.
Here's a priest who was so disobedient to his superiors by believing in his own nonsensical worldview to the point that the Church censured him, disobeying the Magisterium, yet he still will have the sheer audacity to paternalistic repeat Vatican II talking points and ideas that also contradict the Magisterium.

And I get that nobody is perfect, but this inconsistency is present in the Catholic world everywhere. Even most trads in media online will recognize the Sainthood of Pope John Paul II and Pope Paul VI.


I also think that Catholic media continues to decline in quality with each passing year.


Does any "brother" relate?

I'm not familiar with Fr. Mawdsley.  Is this priest a priest of one of the indult groups?  If so, the indult groups are not allowed to disparage Vatican II.  That is what was required by JPII when he incorporated them into the Conciliar Church (after leaving the SSPX).

[Jean Carrier]

Aethel,

Onepeterfive is definitely not the place to go if you want intellectual consistency and rigor. Nishant Xavier writes many of their articles, to start...