Suscipe Domine Traditional Catholic Forum

The Church Courtyard => Traditional Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: Sin of Adam on October 16, 2020, 10:19:36 AM

Title: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Sin of Adam on October 16, 2020, 10:19:36 AM
An excerpt from the book, "God Owes Us Nothing" by Dr. Kolakowski:

Jansenists hardly ever called themselves “Jansenists,” of course; the name was coined by their Jesuit enemies almost at the beginning of the controversy; it suggested a kind of a new sect set up by one recently deceased theologian. Jansenius’s followers called themselves disciples of Augustine, whose authority had been unshakable in Christianity. They insisted that they—and their master, Jansenius—had nothing new to say; they simply followed and repeated the most traditional teaching of the Church, which conformed to the Gospels and to the epistles of Saint Paul and was codified in Augustinian theology. The “Molinist” doctrine, on the other hand, was, they argued, a novelty in the Catholic Church, even though it brought back to life the most dangerous heresy of the Pelagians or semi-Pelagians (the so-called “Marsilians”). The Jesuit writers were indeed in an awkward position when they were challenged by the authority of Augustine, and most of the time they preferred to avoid the issue. When pressed on this point, they either issued gratuitous denials or sometimes—not often—pointed out that the great saint, much as he deserved respect, was not infallible, after all, and his writings were not dogmatically binding; they also averred that their own theory of grace was perfectly in keeping with the teaching of Thomas Aquinas, whose authority they often invoked. They accused the Jansenists, however, of being tainted with the horrors of the Calvinist heresy. Good arguments may be advanced to show that both sides were right in their accusations. Jansenists were on firm ground in saying that they were faithful to the Augustinian teaching, and quite justified in scenting Pelagian errors in the Jesuit theology. The Jesuits were no less right in demonstrating the fundamental conformity of Jansenist tenets with Calvin’s theory of predestination. This amounts to saying that Calvin was, on this point, a good Augustinian and that, by condemning Jansenius, the Church was in effect condemning—without, of course, stating it explicitly—Augustine himself, its own greatest theological authority. The pronouncements and the anathemas of the Council of Trent left some ambiguities which both Jesuits and Jansenists could plausibly interpret in their favor; the successive condemnations of Baius, Jansenius, and Quesnel, however, sealed the fate of the Augustinian tradition on this crucial point in the Catholic world. This was a momentous event in the history of Christianity and thus in the European history of ideas, not a long-forgotten quarrel of hair-splitting medieval minds.

The Council of Trent did confirm the Augustinian teaching. Whatever God orders is feasible with his grace but this grace is not always there and not everybody gets it; otherwise we would not need to ask for help. And it is important to keep in mind that grace is refused not only to infidels and obdurate sinners but also to faithful and just people, who really do wish to abide by divine orders: they have will but not power. The paradigmatic example, both to Augustine and to Jansenius, is, of course, the denial of Peter, a supremely iustus vir who had the will to follow the commandments but was not provided with the divine aid to do it. One simple Augustinian sentence (among many) settles the matter: “I want you to will, but it is not enough that you will. You have to be aided so that you will fully accomplish what you will.”7 Even the Lord’s Prayer, “do not lead us into temptation,” implies that “it is not given to all not to be tempted above what they are capable of.”8 The self-conceited Pelagian contention that the will cannot be enslaved, and that we simply do not sin if we do not want to, is to be found among scholastics who fail to see that it is not enough to will, or to will not to, in order to overpower the temptation. “It is grace which causes that we not only will to do what is right but that we are able to do so.” Bad will can be converted into good will only by the power of grace. God demonstrated, through Peter’s example, that he punishes the pride of those who rely on their own powers. “And what is man without grace but what Peter was when he denied Christ?”9 Jansenius claims that Aquinas’s theology does not depart from Augustinian tenets on this point. Did not he say that man is in duty bound to perform acts he is incapable of performing without grace, which God does not always confer (a just punishment for previous crimes or at least for original sin)?10 Didn’t he say that the sinner is guilty even if he cannot escape sinning, not unlike a drunken killer who is not excused just because he committed the crime as a result of being drunk, since he was guilty of having got drunk in the first place?

According to Augustine, Jurieu, and Calvin, human creatures after the Fall can perform no morally good act (conform to divine law) unaided; for every such act they need the infusion of grace which is given to some and refused to others by the sheer wish of God, and not because some are more deserving of grace than others.
According to the semi-Pelagian teaching of the Jesuits, we do need divine grace to do good but “sufficient grace” is given to all, and it needs only our free will to make it efficient. Since this efficient grace is a constant condition of our life, we may say that moral perfection and our salvation depend on our effort and will. According to Aquinas, we have enough grace to perform some good acts by our free choice, but the free choice does not suffice to avoid all sins in all circumstances.

One might argue that the Augustinians’ fears and worries were not well grounded, as Christianity has after all survived after adopting a semi-Pelagian doctrine of salvation; neither has it been transformed into a secular philosophy, despite the intense efforts of many Catholic theologians. The powerful image of Jesus Christ is still there: a good shepherd with wide-open arms. But it is not the Christianity that the Jansenists carried in their hearts. If they were here now they might say, with infinite sadness, that “the cross has been emptied.” As a result of the long anti-Jansenist campaign, Christianity did undergo a mutation in both theological and cultural terms, imperceptible at the time. This probably made the survival of the Church possible, but at a price which the seventeenth-century Augustinians would have found exorbitant.

Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Sin of Adam on October 16, 2020, 10:30:20 AM
Even the Lord’s Prayer, “do not lead us into temptation,” implies that “it is not given to all not to be tempted above what they are capable of.”

This is exactly why Pope Francis changed the Italian Missal translation of the Lord's prayer.

The Lord’s Prayer changed from “and lead us not into temptation” to “do not let us fall into temptation.”

Doctrinal revolutions hundreds of years ago still cause ripples and sometimes waves even today. In this case from Augustinianism to Semi-Pelagianism.
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Sin of Adam on October 16, 2020, 10:45:19 AM
Relevant to our discussion is the following article which appeared on Vatican News not too long ago:

Development of doctrine is a people that walks together
The Synod for the Amazon has provoked a lively debate among Catholics. There are some who fear going astray from the path of Tradition. The history of the Church shows the path of fidelity.
By Sergio Centofanti

Two thousand years of history teach us that the development of doctrine in the Church is a people that journeys together. Journeying through the ages, the Church sees and learns new things, always growing deeper in her understanding of the Faith. During this journey, there are sometimes people who stop along the way, others who run too quickly, and yet others who take a different path.

Benedict XVI: the Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen
In this regard, the words of Benedict XVI – in a Letter written in 2009 on the occasion of the remission of the excommunication of the four bishops illicitly consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X – are significant:

“The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life".

Drawing together new things and old
Two elements must be considered: not freezing the Magisterium in a given age; and at the same time remaining faithful to Tradition. As Jesus says in the Gospel: “Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old” (Mt 13:52). We cannot simply cling to old things, nor can we simply welcome new things, separating them from the old.

Not stopping at the letter, but allowing oneself to be guided by the Spirit
It is necessary to understand when a development of doctrine is faithful to tradition. The history of the Church teaches us that it is necessary to follow the Spirit, rather than the strict letter. In fact, if one is looking for non-contradiction between texts and documents, they’re likely to hit a roadblock. The point of reference is not a written text, but the people who walk together. As we read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“The Christian faith is not a ‘religion of the book’. Christianity is the religion of the ‘Word’ of God, ‘not a written and mute word, but incarnate and living’. If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, ‘open (our) minds to understand the Scriptures” (CCC, 108).

The great leap forward at the Council of Jerusalem, the first Council
If this spiritual and ecclesial viewpoint is lacking, every development will be seen as a demolition of doctrine and the building up of a new church. We should feel great admiration for the early Christians who took part in the Council of Jerusalem in the first century. Although they were Jews, they nonetheless abolished the centuries-old tradition of circumcision. It must have been very traumatic for some of them to make this leap. Fidelity, however, is not an attachment to a particular rule or regulation, but a way of “walking together” as the people of God.

Do unbaptized babies go to heaven?
Perhaps the most striking example concerns the salvation of unbaptized babies. Here we are talking about what is most important for believers: eternal salvation. In the Roman (“Tridentine”) Catechism, promulgated by Pope St Pius V in accord with a Decree of the Council of Trent, we read that no other possibility of gaining salvation is left to infants, if Baptism is not imparted to them (from the chapter, “On the Sacrament of Baptism”). And many people will remember what was said in the Catechism of Saint Pius X: “Where do babies who die without Baptism go? Babies who die without Baptism go to Limbo, where there is neither supernatural reward nor penalty; because, having original sin, and only that, they do not merit heaven; but neither do they deserve hell or purgatory”.

Development of doctrine from St Pius X to St John Paul II
The Catechism of the Council of Trent was published in 1566; that of St Pius X, in 1912. But the Catechism of the Catholic Church, produced under the direction of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, and approved in 1992 by Pope St John Paul II, says something different:

“As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God…  Indeed, the great mercy of God ‘Who desires that all men should be saved’ (1 Tim 2:4), and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused Him to say: ‘Let the children come to Me, do not hinder them’ (Mk 10:4), allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism” (CCC, 1261).

So the solution was already in the Gospel, but we did not see it for many centuries.

The question of women in the history of the Church
The Church has made a great deal of progress on the question of women. The growing awareness of the rights and dignity of women was greeted by Pope John XXIII as a sign of the times. In the First Letter to Timothy, St Paul wrote, “Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men” (v. 11-12). It was only in 1970’s, during the pontificate of St Paul VI, that women began to teach future priests in the pontifical universities. Yet even here, we had forgotten that it was a woman, St Mary Magdalene, who first proclaimed the Resurrection of Jesus to the Apostles.

The truth will set you free
A final example is the recognition of freedom of religion and of conscience, as well as freedom in politics and freedom of expression, by the Magisterium of the post-Conciliar Church. It is a real leap forward from the documents of 19th century popes such as Gregory XVI, who, in the encyclical Mirari vos, defined these principles as “most poisonous errors”. Looking at this text from a literal point of view, there seems to be a great contradiction, rather than a linear development. But if we read the Gospel more closely, we recall the words of Jesus: “If you continue in my word, you will truly be my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (Jn 8:31-32).

The sorrow of the Popes
The saints have always invited us to love the Popes, as a condition for walking together in the Church. Speaking to the priests of the Apostolic Union in 1912, Pope St Pius X, with “the outpouring of a sorrowful heart”, said, “It seems incredible, and even painful, that there should be priests to whom this recommendation must be made, but in our days we are unfortunately in this harsh, unhappy condition of having to say to priests: Love the Pope!”

Pope St John Paul II, in the Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, noting “with great affliction” the illegitimate episcopal ordinations conferred by Archbishop Lefebvre, recalled that “a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops” is “especially contradictory”. He continued, “It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ Himself entrusted the ministry of unity in His Church”.

And Benedict XVI, in a “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the Remission of the Excommunication of the Four Bishops Consecrated Archbishop Lefebvre” expressed the same sorrow: “I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility”.

Catholics should not only never be lacking in respect toward the Pope, but should love him as the Vicar of Christ.

Appeal to unity: Walking together toward Christ
Fidelity to Jesus does not, therefore, mean being fixated on some text written at a given time in these two thousand years of history; rather, it is fidelity to His people, the people of God walking together toward Christ, united with His Vicar and with the Successors of the Apostles. As Pope Francis said at the Angelus on Sunday, at the conclusion of the Synod:

“What was the Synod? It was, as the word says, a journey undertaken together, comforted by the courage and consolations that come from the Lord. We walked, looking each other in the eye and listening to each other, sincerely, without concealing difficulties, experiencing the beauty of moving forward together in order serve”.

Link: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/church/news/2019-10/development-of-doctrine-is-a-people-that-walks-together.html
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Daniel on October 16, 2020, 10:46:44 AM
Even the Lord’s Prayer, “do not lead us into temptation,” implies that “it is not given to all not to be tempted above what they are capable of.”

Why do you say that "lead us not into temptation" implies that God leads some people into levels of temptation above what they are capable of? That doesn't seem to follow. All it implies is that God may lead us into temptation, and that He probably will lead us into temptation if we don't ask Him not to. (But, as St. Paul points out, "God [. . .] will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able" (1 Corinthians 10:13).)

edit - Oh, I see you were quoting from a book. Still, it doesn't seem to follow
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Sin of Adam on October 16, 2020, 02:51:17 PM
Even the Lord’s Prayer, “do not lead us into temptation,” implies that “it is not given to all not to be tempted above what they are capable of.”

Why do you say that "lead us not into temptation" implies that God leads some people into levels of temptation above what they are capable of? That doesn't seem to follow. All it implies is that God may lead us into temptation, and that He probably will lead us into temptation if we don't ask Him not to. (But, as St. Paul points out, "God [. . .] will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able" (1 Corinthians 10:13).)

edit - Oh, I see you were quoting from a book. Still, it doesn't seem to follow

The argument flows from the implication in the Lord's Prayer that whatever temptation (or testing) we are subjected to can be withstood with - and perhaps only with - God's help.
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Michael Wilson on October 16, 2020, 06:28:06 PM
The Church didn't "Abandon St. Augustine"; it condemned the erroneous interpretation of Augustine's writings contained in a book by Bishop Cornelius Jansen. What next; an apologia for Arianism?
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Non Nobis on October 16, 2020, 08:46:17 PM
The Church didn't "Abandon St. Augustine"; it condemned the erroneous interpretation of Augustine's writings contained in a book by Bishop Cornelius Jansen.

Yes, that's enough for those like you (and me) who think virtually everything the Popes taught formally prior to 1958 or so is true and final.  But is that what the OP thinks or what the members responding here think?  Some even deny Vatican I.  They have to figure out "The Church" themselves somehow.

I haven't read this yet but it is a long article from 1960 on "The Condemnation of Jansenism" that looks pretty scholarly and thorough.   https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=2792
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Sin of Adam on October 16, 2020, 09:30:42 PM
The Church didn't "Abandon St. Augustine"; it condemned the erroneous interpretation of Augustine's writings contained in a book by Bishop Cornelius Jansen. What next; an apologia for Arianism?

A Roman Pontiff implicitly & indirectly condemned St. Augustine's doctrines, which were accepted Catholic doctrine for 1000+ years taught by the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium, by condemning Jansenism. This led to a revolution in the Church that still rages today.

Jansenism is Augustinianism, pure and simple.

No amount of damage control, intellectual or otherwise, can disprove what is obvious documented history.

As for Arianism, it was condemned by a dogmatic ecumenical council ratified by a Roman Pontiff. Jansenism, on the other hand, was condemned by a Pope in a fallible manner who fell prey to political machinations. Mind you, the same authority which is used today to condemn Traditionalists & the Traditional movement. In other words, Popes outside of ex-cathedra pronouncements are entirely fallible.
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Sin of Adam on October 16, 2020, 09:32:54 PM
The Church didn't "Abandon St. Augustine"; it condemned the erroneous interpretation of Augustine's writings contained in a book by Bishop Cornelius Jansen.

Yes, that's enough for those like you (and me) who think virtually everything the Popes taught formally prior to 1958 or so is true and final.  But is that what the OP thinks or what the members responding here think?  Some even deny Vatican I.  They have to figure out "The Church" themselves somehow.

I haven't read this yet but it is a long article from 1960 on "The Condemnation of Jansenism" that looks pretty scholarly and thorough.   https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=2792

Yes because cherry picking Popes and their teachings is not unlike what you condemn.

Anyone who denies Vatican I or any other dogmatic ecumenical council is essentially a heretical schismatic just like the Old Catholics
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Daniel on October 17, 2020, 07:57:55 AM
The Church didn't "Abandon St. Augustine"; it condemned the erroneous interpretation of Augustine's writings contained in a book by Bishop Cornelius Jansen.

I've never read Jansen, but from what I do know I think the Jansenist interpretation is far more in line with Augustine than is the Thomistic re-interpretation of Augustine. The Thomistic re-interpretation seeks to harmonize Augustine with Thomas, but, the problem is, it's pretty clear from Augustine's writings that Augustine and Thomas were not saying the same thing to begin with. The Thomistic re-interpretation--even if theologically correct--is unnatural and forced, not faithful to Augustine. If you follow Augustine through to its natural conclusions (Augustine never went that far), what you end up with is something like Calvinism (without the additional Protestant errors) or Jansenism.


St. Augustine's doctrines, which were accepted Catholic doctrine for 1000+ years taught by the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium,

Were they though? (Not a rhetorical question... I actually don't know)

I am aware that Augustine was heavily influential in the West until Thomas came along and turned the tables. And the Magisterium, since then, does appear to more or less teach Thomism. But before that, did the Magisterium ever teach Augustine? or was Augustine simply one opinion among many? (or, rather, the dominant opinion in a world where there weren't many opinions to begin with)
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Maximilian on October 17, 2020, 08:14:43 AM
I think the Jansenist interpretation is far more in line with Augustine than is the Thomistic re-interpretation of Augustine. The Thomistic re-interpretation seeks to harmonize Augustine with Thomas, but, the problem is, it's pretty clear from Augustine's writings that Augustine and Thomas were not saying the same thing to begin with. The Thomistic re-interpretation--even if theologically correct--is unnatural and forced, not faithful to Augustine.

I believe that this is an historical and theological misunderstanding. The teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas on predestination is perfectly in line with St. Augustine. The "Thomistic" view is very hard line.

Historically, it was the Dominicans who were defending St. Augustine and St. Thomas during the controversies circa 1600. The Jesuits were the ones with the new "Molinist" views that have been described as "semi-Pelagian." The fight between the Dominicans and the Jesuits featured Dominicans on the side of the traditional interpretation of predestination and the Jesuits proposing new doctrines.
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Maximilian on October 17, 2020, 08:25:47 AM
Anyone who denies Vatican I or any other dogmatic ecumenical council is essentially a heretical schismatic

No, anyone who denies Vatican II (which is essentially everyone here on SD) has already rejected Vatican I whether they realize it or not. Vatican II has falsified Vatican I. When you state that Vatican II contains errors and heresies, you are thereby stating that Vatican I was false, since every document of Vatican II was solemnly promulgated by Pope Paul VI using his full authority as supreme pontiff speaking on matters of faith and morals.

just like the Old Catholics

Historically, the "Old Catholics" go back long before Vatican I. Some who were excommunicated for refusing to accept Vatican I turned to the Old Catholics for sacraments, notably Dollinger for example, who was universally considered to be the leading Catholic theologian of the day. This caused a confusion in people's minds between the rejection of Vatican I and the Old Catholics who had split in the prior century.
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Maximilian on October 17, 2020, 08:42:48 AM
I haven't read this yet but it is a long article from 1960 on "The Condemnation of Jansenism" that looks pretty scholarly and thorough.   https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=2792

I clicked on your link, and I find the article neither scholarly or thorough. It starts off in the first paragraph by signaling that the author intends to condemn the nasty Jansenists. A polemical piece by definition is not "scholarly." It is "thorough" in covering much of the early history of the dispute from a one-sided perspective, but skips over a good deal of essential material, for example, failing entirely to mention Port-Royal.

For an article by a high school teacher, it's true that he put in an awful lot of effort. But it never would have been published by a bulletin of the Archdiocese of New York if it was truly "scholarly and thorough."
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Sin of Adam on October 17, 2020, 09:38:22 AM
Anyone who denies Vatican I or any other dogmatic ecumenical council is essentially a heretical schismatic

No, anyone who denies Vatican II (which is essentially everyone here on SD) has already rejected Vatican I whether they realize it or not. Vatican II has falsified Vatican I. When you state that Vatican II contains errors and heresies, you are thereby stating that Vatican I was false, since every document of Vatican II was solemnly promulgated by Pope Paul VI using his full authority as supreme pontiff speaking on matters of faith and morals.

just like the Old Catholics

Historically, the "Old Catholics" go back long before Vatican I. Some who were excommunicated for refusing to accept Vatican I turned to the Old Catholics for sacraments, notably Dollinger for example, who was universally considered to be the leading Catholic theologian of the day. This caused a confusion in people's minds between the rejection of Vatican I and the Old Catholics who had split in the prior century.

I would agree with you 100% if VII were a dogmatic ecumenical council. But its not. The council by its own authority declared that it was not defining anything and therefore is not infallible in those areas where it does not repeat previously infallibly defined pronouncements.

As for the Old Catholics, yes the term is a bit of a misnomer, but suffice it to say that today all those who identify as Old Catholics reject Vatican I.
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Michael Wilson on October 17, 2020, 10:22:43 AM
S.O.A. Stated:
Quote
A Roman Pontiff implicitly & indirectly condemned St. Augustine's doctrines, which were accepted Catholic doctrine for 1000+ years taught by the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium, by condemning Jansenism. This led to a revolution in the Church that still rages today.
Jansenism is Augustinianism, pure and simple.
Pure and simple Balderdash.
Quote

No amount of damage control, intellectual or otherwise, can disprove what is obvious documented history.
Blatant Revisionist history.
Quote

As for Arianism, it was condemned by a dogmatic ecumenical council ratified by a Roman Pontiff. Jansenism, on the other hand, was condemned by a Pope in a fallible manner who fell prey to political machinations. Mind you, the same authority which is used today to condemn Traditionalists & the Traditional movement. In other words, Popes outside of ex-cathedra pronouncements are entirely fallible.
Heresy! Condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus of errors and Quanta Cura:
Quote

Syllabus of Errors: 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. — Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863.
QUANTA CURA: “Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that “without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church’s general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.” But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.”

Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Sin of Adam on October 17, 2020, 10:26:50 AM
S.O.A. Stated:
Quote
A Roman Pontiff implicitly & indirectly condemned St. Augustine's doctrines, which were accepted Catholic doctrine for 1000+ years taught by the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium, by condemning Jansenism. This led to a revolution in the Church that still rages today.
Jansenism is Augustinianism, pure and simple.
Pure and simple Balderdash.
Quote

No amount of damage control, intellectual or otherwise, can disprove what is obvious documented history.
Blatant Revisionist history.
Quote

As for Arianism, it was condemned by a dogmatic ecumenical council ratified by a Roman Pontiff. Jansenism, on the other hand, was condemned by a Pope in a fallible manner who fell prey to political machinations. Mind you, the same authority which is used today to condemn Traditionalists & the Traditional movement. In other words, Popes outside of ex-cathedra pronouncements are entirely fallible.
Heresy! Condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus of errors and Quanta Cura:
Quote

Syllabus of Errors: 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. — Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863.
QUANTA CURA: “Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that “without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church’s general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.” But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.”

I see nothing but empty denial, lack of evidence, and circular reasoning i.e using an annex to an encyclical and non-infallible Papal documents to demonstrate the authority of encyclicals or non-infallible documents.

Read "Rome Has Spoken . . .: A Guide to Forgotten Papal Statements, and How They Have Changed Through the Centuries" and see for yourself instead of regurgitating discredited nonsense.
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Maximilian on October 17, 2020, 10:42:55 AM
I would agree with you 100%

Thank you for having an open mind.

if VII were a dogmatic ecumenical council. But its not.

An ecumenical council ratified and solemnly promulgated by the pope is the very definition of "dogmatic." There can be no higher standard. You might as well say that Nicea or Chalcedon were not dogmatic councils.

The council by its own authority declared that it was not defining anything

It would be appreciated if you quoted that part.

The reality, in any case, is that it defined many things.

and therefore is not infallible in those areas where it does not repeat previously infallibly defined pronouncements.

If Vatican II is not infallible, then nothing is. By the objective standards of the process, it is the most infallible. It's only because it taught things clearly erroneous that we desperately search for loopholes in the process. The hard fact of reality, however, is that it met every possible criteria of the definitions, but nevertheless managed to destroy the Catholic Faith.
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Maximilian on October 17, 2020, 10:58:43 AM
I would agree with you 100% if VII were a dogmatic ecumenical council. But its not. The council by its own authority declared that it was not defining anything

Three of the documents of Vatican II are even titled "Dogmatic Constitution," including
   Sacrosanctum Concilium which destroyed the Catholic Mass and
   Lumen Gentium which is considered the most problematic by many traditional Catholics.

As for the third, Dei Verbum, I haven't given it much study, but this recent article examines its deleterious effects:

https://onepeterfive.com/dei-verbum-moral-theology/

Dei Verbum and the Collapse of Moral Theology

In a previous article, we discussed how the error of Limited Inerrancy was condemned by multiple popes as well as the original document [he means the pre-Council schema] on Revelation from Vatican II. Because Dei Verbum was vague on this point, it allowed liberal heretics to place themselves as authorities over the Word of God to pass judgement on its “errors” while pushing their feminist, Marxist, or other erroneous interpretations. In this article, we will discuss another related issue that the document helped to unleash: the collapse of moral theology.
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Sin of Adam on October 17, 2020, 11:00:19 AM
I would agree with you 100%

Thank you for having an open mind.

if VII were a dogmatic ecumenical council. But its not.

An ecumenical council ratified and solemnly promulgated by the pope is the very definition of "dogmatic." There can be no higher standard. You might as well say that Nicea or Chalcedon were not dogmatic councils.

The council by its own authority declared that it was not defining anything

It would be appreciated if you quoted that part.

The reality, in any case, is that it defined many things.

and therefore is not infallible in those areas where it does not repeat previously infallibly defined pronouncements.

If Vatican II is not infallible, then nothing is. By the objective standards of the process, it is the most infallible. It's only because it taught things clearly erroneous that we desperately search for loopholes in the process. The hard fact of reality, however, is that it met every possible criteria of the definitions, but nevertheless managed to destroy the Catholic Faith.

Perhaps I should have worded my argument in more precise terms. Vatican II is infallible as an ecumenical council, but by the authority of those who convened it as an ecumenical council, it refused to define any new dogmas or matters pertaining to faith & morals. It is by the authority of those convening it, a pastoral council that was meant to rephrase already defined teaching in a manner acceptable to the modern world. Whether it succeeded in that is another question and what came out of it is another question as well, but that was the explicit intention of the council.

Oct. 11, 1962, Pope John XXIII characterized it as such. In his address that day, “Gaudet Mater Ecclesia,” he told the assembled prelates that the council was to be “predominantly pastoral in character.” Vatican II did not define a single doctrine. The council did not define any doctrines because it adopted a mode of discourse different from that operative in councils that produced definitions.

“In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document.”
(Pope Paul VI, General Audience of 12 January 1966, Pope Paul VI presided over the Second Vatican Council)

“The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.”
(Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who later became Pope Benedict XVI, given 13 July 1988, in Santiago, Chile)
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Sin of Adam on October 17, 2020, 11:08:21 AM
I would agree with you 100% if VII were a dogmatic ecumenical council. But its not. The council by its own authority declared that it was not defining anything

Three of the documents of Vatican II are even titled "Dogmatic Constitution," including
   Sacrosanctum Concilium which destroyed the Catholic Mass and
   Lumen Gentium which is considered the most problematic by many traditional Catholics.

As for the third, Dei Verbum, I haven't given it much study, but this recent article examines its deleterious effects:

https://onepeterfive.com/dei-verbum-moral-theology/

Dei Verbum and the Collapse of Moral Theology

In a previous article, we discussed how the error of Limited Inerrancy was condemned by multiple popes as well as the original document [he means the pre-Council schema] on Revelation from Vatican II. Because Dei Verbum was vague on this point, it allowed liberal heretics to place themselves as authorities over the Word of God to pass judgement on its “errors” while pushing their feminist, Marxist, or other erroneous interpretations. In this article, we will discuss another related issue that the document helped to unleash: the collapse of moral theology.

January 12th, 1966, Pope Paul VI:

“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L'Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Vetus Ordo on October 17, 2020, 01:15:35 PM
An excerpt from the book, "God Owes Us Nothing" by Dr. Kolakowski

An excellent book that I've made reference to in the past.

Thought-provoking. Everyone should read it.
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Vetus Ordo on October 17, 2020, 01:30:17 PM
I would agree with you 100% if VII were a dogmatic ecumenical council. But its not. The council by its own authority declared that it was not defining anything

Three of the documents of Vatican II are even titled "Dogmatic Constitution," including
   Sacrosanctum Concilium which destroyed the Catholic Mass and
   Lumen Gentium which is considered the most problematic by many traditional Catholics.

As for the third, Dei Verbum, I haven't given it much study, but this recent article examines its deleterious effects:

https://onepeterfive.com/dei-verbum-moral-theology/

Dei Verbum and the Collapse of Moral Theology

In a previous article, we discussed how the error of Limited Inerrancy was condemned by multiple popes as well as the original document [he means the pre-Council schema] on Revelation from Vatican II. Because Dei Verbum was vague on this point, it allowed liberal heretics to place themselves as authorities over the Word of God to pass judgement on its “errors” while pushing their feminist, Marxist, or other erroneous interpretations. In this article, we will discuss another related issue that the document helped to unleash: the collapse of moral theology.

January 12th, 1966, Pope Paul VI:

“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L'Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)

Ecumenical Councils of the Church solemnly ratified by the Pope cannot teach heresy, otherwise the extraordinary magisterium of the Church would be a source of perdition. If you add to that a heretical Code of Canon Law and heretical encyclicals of 6 popes in a row, then the edifice crumbles to the ground in spectacular fashion. Vatican II is unnegotiable. No-one who wishes to remain in communion with Rome can ignore it or reject it. It's the major stumbling block preventing the regularization of the SSPX, for instance. The proof is in the pudding.

Paul VI, Address, May 24, 1976: “And the fact is all the more serious in that the opposition of which we are speaking is not only encouraged by some priests, but is led by a prelate, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who nevertheless still has our respect. It is so painful to take note of this: but how can we not see in such an attitude – whatever may be these people’s intentions – the placing of themselves outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore outside the Church? For this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, when, that is, it is held as preferable to disobey with the pretext of preserving one’s faith intact, and of working in one’s way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time refusing to give her effective obedience. And this is said openly. It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding: that the faith would also be in danger because of the reforms and post-conciliar directives, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? It is for this group, not the Pope, not the College of Bishops, not the Ecumenical Council, to decide which among the innumerable traditions must be considered as the norm of faith! As you see, Venerable Brothers, such an attitude sets itself up as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his lawful successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith, and to feed the universal flock, and which established him as the guarantor and custodian of the deposit of faith…The adoption of the new Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful. The instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided, with the authorization of the Ordinary, for the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice sine populo. The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. In no different way did our holy predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Trent…We have called the attention of Archbishop Lefebvre to the seriousness of his behavior, the irregularity of his principal present initiatives, the inconsistency and often falsity of the doctrinal positions on which he bases this behavior and these initiatives, and the damage that accrues to the entire Church because of them.” (L’Osservatore Romano, June 3, 1976, p. 2.)

Paul VI and all his successors have treated Vatican II as binding. It is as infallible and binding as Vatican I, Trent or Nicea. In his book, The Ratzinger Report, the former cardinal and pope stated:

"It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism’, also in its extreme forms."

Was Vatican II Infallible? (https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/vatican-ii-infallible/)
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Sin of Adam on October 17, 2020, 01:42:47 PM
I would agree with you 100% if VII were a dogmatic ecumenical council. But its not. The council by its own authority declared that it was not defining anything

Three of the documents of Vatican II are even titled "Dogmatic Constitution," including
   Sacrosanctum Concilium which destroyed the Catholic Mass and
   Lumen Gentium which is considered the most problematic by many traditional Catholics.

As for the third, Dei Verbum, I haven't given it much study, but this recent article examines its deleterious effects:

https://onepeterfive.com/dei-verbum-moral-theology/

Dei Verbum and the Collapse of Moral Theology

In a previous article, we discussed how the error of Limited Inerrancy was condemned by multiple popes as well as the original document [he means the pre-Council schema] on Revelation from Vatican II. Because Dei Verbum was vague on this point, it allowed liberal heretics to place themselves as authorities over the Word of God to pass judgement on its “errors” while pushing their feminist, Marxist, or other erroneous interpretations. In this article, we will discuss another related issue that the document helped to unleash: the collapse of moral theology.

January 12th, 1966, Pope Paul VI:

“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L'Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)

Ecumenical Councils of the Church solemnly ratified by the Pope cannot teach heresy, otherwise the extraordinary magisterium of the Church would be a source of perdition. If you add to that a heretical Code of Canon Law and heretical encyclicals of 6 popes in a row, then the edifice crumbles to the ground in spectacular fashion. Vatican II is unnegotiable. No-one who wishes to remain in communion with Rome can ignore it or reject it. It's the major stumbling block preventing the regularization of the SSPX, for instance. The proof is in the pudding.

Paul VI, Address, May 24, 1976: “And the fact is all the more serious in that the opposition of which we are speaking is not only encouraged by some priests, but is led by a prelate, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who nevertheless still has our respect. It is so painful to take note of this: but how can we not see in such an attitude – whatever may be these people’s intentions – the placing of themselves outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore outside the Church? For this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, when, that is, it is held as preferable to disobey with the pretext of preserving one’s faith intact, and of working in one’s way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time refusing to give her effective obedience. And this is said openly. It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding: that the faith would also be in danger because of the reforms and post-conciliar directives, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? It is for this group, not the Pope, not the College of Bishops, not the Ecumenical Council, to decide which among the innumerable traditions must be considered as the norm of faith! As you see, Venerable Brothers, such an attitude sets itself up as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his lawful successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith, and to feed the universal flock, and which established him as the guarantor and custodian of the deposit of faith…The adoption of the new Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful. The instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided, with the authorization of the Ordinary, for the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice sine populo. The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. In no different way did our holy predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Trent…We have called the attention of Archbishop Lefebvre to the seriousness of his behavior, the irregularity of his principal present initiatives, the inconsistency and often falsity of the doctrinal positions on which he bases this behavior and these initiatives, and the damage that accrues to the entire Church because of them.” (L’Osservatore Romano, June 3, 1976, p. 2.)

Paul VI and all his successors have treated Vatican II as binding. It is as infallible and binding as Vatican I, Trent or Nicea. In his book, The Ratzinger Report, the former cardinal and pope stated:

"It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism’, also in its extreme forms."

Was Vatican II Infallible? (https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/vatican-ii-infallible/)

Dear Sir,

I think you misunderstand the crux of the argument.

No one is talking about the legitimacy of VII or its binding nature, but about whether or not it meets the criteria of previous ecumenical councils specifically as it relates to defining dogma.

Vatican II did not define new dogma

The very Popes who convened the council have confirmed this point.

What that means by logical necessity is that it cannot be compared to the previous councils. The very proof of this is that it did not cast any anathemas on those who would dare to refuse it.

In practical terms, if VII was in the same league as the previous ecumenical councils, then the SSPX would have to be seen by Roman authority as being in the same boat as Old Catholics, which is clearly not the case.

Even Pope Francis does not consider the SSPX to be heretical or in schism despite their aggressive and outright rejection of VII.

John Paul II only excommunicated Msgr. Lefebvre for illicit consecrations; not for rejecting Vatican II.

Some groups in full communion with Rome reject VII and Rome has not censured them.

Sum of the argument? VII is not the same as the previous councils, both theoretically and practically.

P.S.

It is possible to interpret even those areas of Vatican II which are contentious in an orthodox fashion.

As for Papal encyclicals then they are fallible without any doubt and contain/teach error, even heresy, in specific circumstances.

Even if the last six Popes were manifest and pertinacious heretics who taught heresies, it doesn't change the fact that Vatican II as an ecumenical council does not necessitate your conclusions.
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Vetus Ordo on October 17, 2020, 01:58:03 PM
No one is talking about the legitimacy of VII or its binding nature, but about whether or not it meets the criteria of previous ecumenical councils specifically as it relates to defining dogma.

If Vatican II taught heretical doctrines, then it cannot be a Council of the Church.

Councils of the Church that promote heresy are a novel concept of 20th century "traditionalism."

Quote
Vatican II did not define new dogma

The very Popes who convened the council have confirmed this point.

"New dogma" is a misnomer. Dogmas are supposed to be logical propositions that exist in the deposit of faith delivered to the Apostles two thousand years ago.

Vatican II was lawfully convened and lawfully ratified by the pope. It defined doctrine, contrary to your claim, which is enough to be considered infallible. Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam,1964: "It is precisely because the Second Vatican Council has the task of dealing once more with the doctrine de Ecclesia (of the Church) and of defining it, that it has been called the continuation and complement of the First Vatican Council."

Furthermore, Paul VI taught that Vatican II contained authoritative teaching, condemned errors, and passed down the Church’s doctrine. In the Last General Meeting of Vatican II, Dec. 7, 1965, he stated that the council "has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity...Errors were condemned, indeed, because charity demanded this no less than did truth...This council hands over to posterity not only the image of the Church but also the patrimony of her doctrine and of her commandments, the ‘deposit’ received from Christ and meditated upon through centuries, lived and expressed now and clarified in so many of its parts, settled and arranged in its integrity."

Quote
Some groups in full communion with Rome reject VII and Rome has not censured them.

List them, please.

If you're thinking about the late Ecclesia Dei groups and things like the Institut du Bon Pasteur, they all accept the validity and legitimacy of Vatican II and the magisterium of all subsequent popes.
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Sin of Adam on October 17, 2020, 02:13:07 PM
No one is talking about the legitimacy of VII or its binding nature, but about whether or not it meets the criteria of previous ecumenical councils specifically as it relates to defining dogma.

If Vatican II taught heretical doctrines, then it cannot be a Council of the Church.

Councils of the Church that promote heresy are a novel concept of 20th century "traditionalism."

Quote
Vatican II did not define new dogma

The very Popes who convened the council have confirmed this point.

"New dogma" is a misnomer. Dogmas are supposed to be logical propositions that exist in the deposit of faith delivered to the Apostles two thousand years ago.

Vatican II was lawfully convened and lawfully ratified by the pope. It defined doctrine, contrary to your claim, which is enough to be considered infallible. Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam,1964: "It is precisely because the Second Vatican Council has the task of dealing once more with the doctrine de Ecclesia (of the Church) and of defining it, that it has been called the continuation and complement of the First Vatican Council."

Furthermore, Paul VI taught that Vatican II contained authoritative teaching, condemned errors, and passed down the Church’s doctrine. In the Last General Meeting of Vatican II, Dec. 7, 1965, he stated that the council "has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity...Errors were condemned, indeed, because charity demanded this no less than did truth...This council hands over to posterity not only the image of the Church but also the patrimony of her doctrine and of her commandments, the ‘deposit’ received from Christ and meditated upon through centuries, lived and expressed now and clarified in so many of its parts, settled and arranged in its integrity."

Quote
Some groups in full communion with Rome reject VII and Rome has not censured them.

List them, please.

If you're thinking about the late Ecclesia Dei groups and things like the Institut du Bon Pasteur, they all accept the validity and legitimacy of Vatican II and the magisterium of all subsequent popes.

1) As mentioned in my previous posts, it is possible to interpret Vatican II in an orthodox fashion. One does not have to hold to the position that Vatican II taught heresy if the evidence points to the impossibility of a pastoral, non-dogmatic council teaching heresy. We do not need to go down the road of false dichotomies.

2) A dogma of the Catholic Church is defined as "a truth revealed by God, which the magisterium of the Church declares as binding." New dogma would mean in this case, a truth revealed by God that just now being proposed by the Catholic Church as binding. Hence Papal Infallibility not being a dogma for nearly 1900 years.

3) Yes, Vatican II was convened and ratified by two valid Popes. So what?

4) I don't understand why it is difficult for you to grasp the rather obvious point here. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L'Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966) Hence by its infallible nature as an ecumenical council, it declared infalliblly, that it did not proclaim any new dogmas.

What does that mean? That means religious liberty and the rest of what was novel as interpreted by modernists in Vatican II are new ideas that did not exist in the Church before except as condemned errors. Hence these novelties are not infallible and thus can be rejected if one holds to the view that Vatican II cannot be interpreted in an orthodox fashion.

5) Correction: not full communion; rather "imperfect communion"; groups that reject VII.
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Michael Wilson on October 17, 2020, 02:30:45 PM
S.O.A. Stated:
Quote
I see nothing
The only true statement that you have made.
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Sin of Adam on October 17, 2020, 02:33:02 PM
S.O.A. Stated:
Quote
I see nothing
The only true statement that you have made.

Please spare me the self righteous, elitist, one line zingers best reserved for advertisements and use your God given reason to make something resembling an argument.
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Michael Wilson on October 17, 2020, 02:34:18 PM
S.O.A. Stated:
Quote
I see nothing
The only true statement that you have made.

Please spare me the self righteous, elitist, one line zingers best reserved for advertisements and use your God given reason to make something resembling an argument.
Everything you have posted so far demonstrates that you are not capable of understanding a logical argument.
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Sin of Adam on October 17, 2020, 02:37:25 PM
S.O.A. Stated:
Quote
I see nothing
The only true statement that you have made.

Please spare me the self righteous, elitist, one line zingers best reserved for advertisements and use your God given reason to make something resembling an argument.
Everything you have posted so far demonstrates that you are not capable of understanding a logical argument.

Edit: I apologize for my Ad hominem. Please forgive me as I was in the heat of the moment.
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Michael Wilson on October 17, 2020, 07:51:04 PM
No problem, there is always room to hope for somebody who admits they are not perfect; my apologies also; I have little patience for the depressing Jansenist position on grace and God's "justice".
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Vetus Ordo on October 18, 2020, 10:51:14 AM
1) As mentioned in my previous posts, it is possible to interpret Vatican II in an orthodox fashion. One does not have to hold to the position that Vatican II taught heresy if the evidence points to the impossibility of a pastoral, non-dogmatic council teaching heresy. We do not need to go down the road of false dichotomies.

2) A dogma of the Catholic Church is defined as "a truth revealed by God, which the magisterium of the Church declares as binding." New dogma would mean in this case, a truth revealed by God that just now being proposed by the Catholic Church as binding. Hence Papal Infallibility not being a dogma for nearly 1900 years.

3) Yes, Vatican II was convened and ratified by two valid Popes. So what?

4) I don't understand why it is difficult for you to grasp the rather obvious point here. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L'Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966) Hence by its infallible nature as an ecumenical council, it declared infalliblly, that it did not proclaim any new dogmas.

What does that mean? That means religious liberty and the rest of what was novel as interpreted by modernists in Vatican II are new ideas that did not exist in the Church before except as condemned errors. Hence these novelties are not infallible and thus can be rejected if one holds to the view that Vatican II cannot be interpreted in an orthodox fashion.

5) Correction: not full communion; rather "imperfect communion"; groups that reject VII.

1) If by "orthodox fashion" you mean Tridentine Catholicism, it's not possible.

2) Yes, which is another problem unto itself;

3) So it must be accepted and adhered to, the same way other councils were;

4) The pastoral nature is irrelevant to the point. The Church, even in her ordinary magisterium, cannot teach heresy much less in her extraordinary magisterium (which is what ecumenical councils are). Vatican II defined Church doctrine, as per the words of John XXIII, Paul VI and the dogmatic constitutions themselves. Traditionally speaking, when the Church teaches doctrine, and applies it pastorally, she is still free from error. Infallibility is not reserved to formal anathemas. Religious liberty, as defined by Vatican II declaration Dignitatis humanae, cannot be rejected without severing communion with Rome. This has been clear since 1965.

5) Groups that reject Vatican II are not in communion with Rome.
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Prayerful on October 18, 2020, 01:18:37 PM
I would agree with you 100% if VII were a dogmatic ecumenical council. But its not. The council by its own authority declared that it was not defining anything

Three of the documents of Vatican II are even titled "Dogmatic Constitution," including
   Sacrosanctum Concilium which destroyed the Catholic Mass and
   Lumen Gentium which is considered the most problematic by many traditional Catholics.

As for the third, Dei Verbum, I haven't given it much study, but this recent article examines its deleterious effects:

https://onepeterfive.com/dei-verbum-moral-theology/

Dei Verbum and the Collapse of Moral Theology

In a previous article, we discussed how the error of Limited Inerrancy was condemned by multiple popes as well as the original document [he means the pre-Council schema] on Revelation from Vatican II. Because Dei Verbum was vague on this point, it allowed liberal heretics to place themselves as authorities over the Word of God to pass judgement on its “errors” while pushing their feminist, Marxist, or other erroneous interpretations. In this article, we will discuss another related issue that the document helped to unleash: the collapse of moral theology.

It is likely that most who voted through SC took as legalising some measure of liturgical experimentation, Gregorian chant apparently retaining its place, nothing too radical. Abp John Charles McQuaid of Dublin was keen to assure his archdiocesan faithful that nothing that changed, and in a way that was so, at least how the Church retained a certain social dominance. One thing he did was mandate that altars in Dublin be positioned to allow both ad orientem and versus populum, maybe a Hermeneutic of Continuity man before his time. Yet all those bishops so well trained in fine neo-Thomism still presided over a de-facto abolition of the Mass for most people. The non-dogmatic claim seems like it was designed to put the vigilant to sleep. JP2 as an auxiliary bp was part of the vigilant element. Given his years in office, something put him to sleep. Most of the documents can be understood in an orthodox way, excepting statements (Lumen Gentium and other horrors) that Moslems and Christians worshiped the same God. I don't think an honest Moslem would accept that. No Christian should either.

I bought Dr Kolakowski's book. I seems worth reading. And perhaps some here should do so. You see statements here at times that Predestination is Calvinist, when the problem arises from Double Predestination. Many seem to have a sleepy idea downstream of a mix of semi-Pelagianism and Molinism.
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Sin of Adam on October 18, 2020, 01:24:02 PM
1) As mentioned in my previous posts, it is possible to interpret Vatican II in an orthodox fashion. One does not have to hold to the position that Vatican II taught heresy if the evidence points to the impossibility of a pastoral, non-dogmatic council teaching heresy. We do not need to go down the road of false dichotomies.

2) A dogma of the Catholic Church is defined as "a truth revealed by God, which the magisterium of the Church declares as binding." New dogma would mean in this case, a truth revealed by God that just now being proposed by the Catholic Church as binding. Hence Papal Infallibility not being a dogma for nearly 1900 years.

3) Yes, Vatican II was convened and ratified by two valid Popes. So what?

4) I don't understand why it is difficult for you to grasp the rather obvious point here. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L'Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966) Hence by its infallible nature as an ecumenical council, it declared infalliblly, that it did not proclaim any new dogmas.

What does that mean? That means religious liberty and the rest of what was novel as interpreted by modernists in Vatican II are new ideas that did not exist in the Church before except as condemned errors. Hence these novelties are not infallible and thus can be rejected if one holds to the view that Vatican II cannot be interpreted in an orthodox fashion.

5) Correction: not full communion; rather "imperfect communion"; groups that reject VII.

1) If by "orthodox fashion" you mean Tridentine Catholicism, it's not possible.

2) Yes, which is another problem unto itself;

3) So it must be accepted and adhered to, the same way other councils were;

4) The pastoral nature is irrelevant to the point. The Church, even in her ordinary magisterium, cannot teach heresy much less in her extraordinary magisterium (which is what ecumenical councils are). Vatican II defined Church doctrine, as per the words of John XXIII, Paul VI and the dogmatic constitutions themselves. Traditionally speaking, when the Church teaches doctrine, and applies it pastorally, she is still free from error. Infallibility is not reserved to formal anathemas. Religious liberty, as defined by Vatican II declaration Dignitatis humanae, cannot be rejected without severing communion with Rome. This has been clear since 1965.

5) Groups that reject Vatican II are not in communion with Rome.

1. Says who? You? With all due respect there are countless academic studies out there that fully reconcile Vatican II with prior Church councils and tradition, especially Trent. See Vatican II: Renewal within Tradition by Matthew Lamb, Oxford University Press, for an in depth analysis or see From Trent to Vatican II: Historical and Theological Investigations, Oxford University Press, as well for a historical dogmatic analysis

2. Not a problem at all; except for heretics, those who misunderstand the nature of the Church, and those who are ignorant of the concept of the development of doctrine.

3. I agree; when interpreted within tradition. Hermeneutic of continuity being key here as outlined by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

4. There is no problem if one interprets Vatican II in an orthodox fashion. Nonetheless for those that do reject it; once again Roman authority has not declared them to be heretics nor schismatics unlike those who dared to reject previous ecumenical councils. By logical necessity it means that VII cannot be of the same species as the previous councils; only in genus is it similar. It defined nothing and only repeated prior teaching; so what is there to reject but "the pastoral attitude" toward the modern world which it heavily focused on aside from the above?

5. The SSPX, a chapel of which I personally attend just to list a fun fact, is in "imperfect communion" with Rome per Popes Benedict XVI & Francis I. This is beyond dispute. And the SSPX completely rejects Vatican II.
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Arvinger on October 22, 2020, 06:45:32 AM
No, anyone who denies Vatican II (which is essentially everyone here on SD) has already rejected Vatican I whether they realize it or not. Vatican II has falsified Vatican I. When you state that Vatican II contains errors and heresies, you are thereby stating that Vatican I was false, since every document of Vatican II was solemnly promulgated by Pope Paul VI using his full authority as supreme pontiff speaking on matters of faith and morals.

I don't agree at all with your conclusion that Vatican I was falsified and I think it was already sufficiently refuted in this thread. But lets grant it for the sake of argument. What does it mean? If Vatican I was falsified, that means epistemological falsification of the whole Christian faith, since claims of the authority (Catholic Church) which teaches principles of the Catholic faith have been falsified empirically through its own rules. If an Ecumenical Council (Vatican I) erred in its most solemn promulgation, there is no guarantee whatsoever that Trent did not err on transsubstantiation, justification or canon of Sacred Scripture, or that Nicaea did not err on the Deity of Christ. Catholicism turns out to be just another religion which has some truth and some falsehood in it, and there is no principled way to distinguish one from another (since Vatican I demonstrates that solemn promulgations do not guarantee truth at all). Consequently, no principled epistemological argument for overall truth of Catholicism can be made, since Church's claims to any sort of teaching authority were falsified by error in solemn teaching of Vatican I.

In other words, rejection of Vatican I logically means rejection of Catholicism. Fortunately, you are wrong.

I see nothing but empty denial, lack of evidence, and circular reasoning i.e using an annex to an encyclical and non-infallible Papal documents to demonstrate the authority of encyclicals or non-infallible documents.

Read "Rome Has Spoken . . .: A Guide to Forgotten Papal Statements, and How They Have Changed Through the Centuries" and see for yourself instead of regurgitating discredited nonsense.

Following this logic modernism could well be correct. After all, condemnations of modernism, false ecumenism, separation of Church and State etc. where made in fallible documents, which - you claim - can be radically erroneous. Maybe St. Pius X was wrong in his fallible condemnation of modernism and Pius XI was wrong in his condemnation of false ecumenism. Maybe Vatican II corrected their errors, modernism and JP2's style ecumenism is the right way to go and consequently Francis is one of the best Popes in history.

People who argue "it is not infallible, therefore it could be completely wrong and still be part of the Magisterium" never take their argument to its logical conclusion.
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Maximilian on October 22, 2020, 08:47:40 AM
If an Ecumenical Council (Vatican II) erred in its most solemn promulgation, there is no guarantee whatsoever that Trent did not err on transsubstantiation, justification or canon of Sacred Scripture, or that Nicaea did not err on the Deity of Christ. Catholicism turns out to be just another religion which has some truth and some falsehood in it, and there is no principled way to distinguish one from another (since Vatican II demonstrates that solemn promulgations do not guarantee truth at all). Consequently, no principled epistemological argument for overall truth of Catholicism can be made, since Church's claims to any sort of teaching authority were falsified by error in solemn teaching of Vatican II.

All you're doing by focusing on Vatican I is pushing back the problem, like those evolutionists who claim that life arrived to Earth on meteors. They push the problem away into another realm without solving the issue.

Everything you claim in your post that would happen if Vatican I were false actually did happen at Vatican II. By being present here on SD we all agree on that point.

So all of your epistemological concerns are just the reality in which we live now that Vatican II has taken place. We have to deal with this reality and its consequences.
Title: Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
Post by: Sin of Adam on October 22, 2020, 02:05:25 PM
If an Ecumenical Council (Vatican II) erred in its most solemn promulgation, there is no guarantee whatsoever that Trent did not err on transsubstantiation, justification or canon of Sacred Scripture, or that Nicaea did not err on the Deity of Christ. Catholicism turns out to be just another religion which has some truth and some falsehood in it, and there is no principled way to distinguish one from another (since Vatican II demonstrates that solemn promulgations do not guarantee truth at all). Consequently, no principled epistemological argument for overall truth of Catholicism can be made, since Church's claims to any sort of teaching authority were falsified by error in solemn teaching of Vatican II.

All you're doing by focusing on Vatican I is pushing back the problem, like those evolutionists who claim that life arrived to Earth on meteors. They push the problem away into another realm without solving the issue.

Everything you claim in your post that would happen if Vatican I were false actually did happen at Vatican II. By being present here on SD we all agree on that point.

So all of your epistemological concerns are just the reality in which we live now that Vatican II has taken place. We have to deal with this reality and its consequences.

If ecumenical councils are fallible then RC & EO are both false religions. Protestantism would be the natural conclusion which eventually leads to irreligion as Protestantism is the gateway to relativism.