Discussion in 'Pope Francis' started by garabandal, May 24, 2020.
I thought it was just a joke too.
Wonderfully said, AED. Yes, we are in a very bad place, and I worry about my children as well. They all seem to be oblivious to what is going on around them.
I don't have children, but I do recall my father being VERY concerned about "stuff" in the 1970s and 1980s (which are like paradise by comparison to today). I remember wondering what he was so worried about: C'mon, Dad, calm down. Life is fun. It can't be 1955 forever!
As an adult, I think -- yeah: 1955 to 1985 WERE very different. I now see how, in many respects, his worries were justified. The drastic changes in music, civility, sexual mores.
I honestly didn't understand then. The '70s and to mid-'80s were fun because I was oblivious.
One of the conditions for the full regularisation of the SSPX is that they must stop questioning/ criticising Vatican II's problematic documents and liturgy.
Of course, they can't agree to that.
What is wrong is wrong.
Recently, even Bp Schneider and Abp Vigano have spoken out about the problems with Vatican II.
Oh, but you forget - the title 'Vicar of Christ' was dropped from the Pontifical yearbook recently. The way PF behaves, he must be someone else's vicar.
Cdl Burke decries ‘distortion’ of sacraments during pandemic, loss of sense of sacred
First Communion at home, Hosts in plastic bags, and distribution of the Eucharist using plastic gloves are manipulations, the cardinal emphasised.
Bishop Schneider: There is no divine positive will or natural right to the diversity of religions
'There have been statements made by other Ecumenical Councils that have become obsolete and been forgotten or have even been corrected by the later Magisterium'
By Bishop Athanasius Schneider
Mon Jun 1, 2020 - 6:36 pm EST
June 1, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – There is sufficient reason to suggest that a cause and effect relationship exists between the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, and the Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together, signed by Pope Francis and Sheik Ahmed el-Tayeb in Abu Dhabi, on February 4, 2019. On his return flight to Rome from the United Arab Emirates, Pope Francis himself told journalists: “There is one thing … I would like to say. I openly reaffirm this: from the Catholic point of view the Document does not move one millimeter away from the Second Vatican Council. It is even cited, several times. The Document was crafted in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council.”
Dignitatis Humanae reaffirms the Church’s traditional doctrine, stating: “We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church,” and it reasserts the “moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ” (n.1). Unfortunately, just a few sentences later, the Council undermines this truth by setting forth a theory never before taught by the constant Magisterium of the Church, i.e., that man has the right founded in his own nature, “not to be prevented from acting in religious matters according to his own conscience, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits” (ut in re religiosa neque impediatur, quominus iuxta suam conscientiam agat privatim et publice, vel solus vel aliis consociatus, intra debitos limites, n. 2). According to this statement, man would have the right, based on nature itself (and therefore positively willed by God) not to be prevented from choosing, practicing and spreading, also collectively, the worship of an idol, and even the worship of Satan, since there are religions that worship Satan, for instance, the “church of Satan.” Indeed, in some countries, the “church of Satan” is recognized with the same legal value as all other religions.
The only condition that Dignitatis Humanae places on religious freedom is that “just public order” be observed (n. 2). And so a religion called “the church of Satan” is able to worship the Father of Lies, so long as they observe “public order” within due limits. Hence the freedom not to be prevented in choosing, practicing and spreading the worship of Satan, individually or collectively, would be a right that has its foundation in human nature, and is therefore positively willed by God.
The dangerous ambiguity of this statement is concealed by the fact that it is part of a single sentence, whose first part obviously corresponds to the traditional and constant doctrine of the Church. This first part says: “in religious matters, no one should be forced to act against his conscience” (ut in re religiosa neque aliquis cogatur ad agendum contra suam conscientiam, n.2), i.e., no one should be forced against his will to believe in God and accept a religion, even the only true one religion, which is the Christian religion.
Truth and error are being asserted in one and the same sentence — in the same breath, so to speak. The existence and exercise of free will and, consequently, the freedom from external coercion, are founded in human nature itself, and are therefore willed by God. The faculty to choose between good and evil, truth and error, between the only one and true religion and other religions, is founded in human nature. However, one cannot conclude from the existence of the faculty to choose between good and evil, between truth and error, that there follows the natural right to choose, execute and spread error, i.e. a false religion.
Immunity from external coercion in accepting the only one true Faith is a natural right. It is also a natural right not to be forced to carry out evil (sin) or error (false religion). However, it does not follow from this that God wills positively (natural right), that man should not be prevented from choosing, carrying out and spreading evil (sin) or error (false religion). One has to keep in mind this fundamental distinction between the faculty to choose and do evil, and the right to choose and do evil. God tolerates evil and error and false religions; He even tolerates the worship of the so-called “church of Satan.” However, God’s tolerance or allowance (His permissive will) of evil and error does not constitute in man a natural right to choose, practice and spread them, i.e. it does not constitute God’s positive will. Christian Apologists in the first centuries told the pagan civil authorities that, if Christians would worship a false religion, the State could forbid such a religion. The key point in the first-century Christian apologetics was this: to prove the truth of the Christian religion and the falsehood of pagan religions. Tertullian said that all pagan , i.e. non-Christian religions, are “worshipping a lie, and they commit the crime of real irreligion against the truth” (Apologeticum, 24). How can immunity from coercion in choosing and committing a crime against the truth be a right based on man’s nature itself and, therefore, positively willed by God? St. Melito of Sardis, a holy bishop and apologist from the second century, said: “The greatest of all errors is this: when a man is ignorant of God, and in God’s stead worships that which is not God” (Eus. h.e. 4, 26)
There are two distinct realities. It is one thing to force someone against his conscience to accept a religion and carry out religious acts. It is another to proclaim a natural right, positively willed by God, to choose, practice and spread error and false religions, as in the case, for instance, of choosing, practicing and spreading the religion of the “church of Satan.”
For anyone who is intellectually honest, and is not seeking to square the circle, it is clear that the assertion made in Dignitatis Humanae, according to which every man has the right based on his own nature (and therefore positively willed by God) to practice and spread a religion according to his own conscience, does not differ substantially from the statement in the Abu Dhabi Declaration, which says: “The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives.”
How can this fact be explained, given that the aforementioned problematic statement in Dignitatis Humanae was made by an Ecumenical Council? The first basic thing to consider is the fact that both Popes of the Council — John XXIII and Paul VI — and Vatican II itself, clearly stated that, unlike all previous Councils, it had neither the aim nor the intention to propose its own doctrine in a definitive and infallible way. Thus, in his address at the solemn opening of the Council, Pope John XXIII said: “The main purpose of this Council is not, therefore, the discussion of one or another theme of the fundamental doctrine of the Church.” He added that the character of the Council’s magisterium would be “predominantly pastoral” (October 11, 1962). For his part, Pope Paul VI said in his address at the last public session of the Council, that Vatican II “made its program” from “the pastoral character” (7 December 1965). Furthermore, in a note made by the Council’s Secretary-General, on November 16, 1964, one reads: “Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding.”
full article at:
(Emphasis in red is mine - SgC)
Separate names with a comma.