These are the last of my notes on the Vatican II series.
December 7th, 1965
**What is below is my shorthand mixed with my own thoughts. This post is a note/thought dump and may not make sense! If I can clarify anything, please let me know so I can edit/explain further.**
Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the modern world. Speaks about the dignity of man. The ideas of the Church for mans betterment. It starts out with man in 1965. Existential..."The joys and hopes of man in 1965 are the same as the Church." There is no mention of Original Sin. "To be a good Christian is to be the most human." Grace and nature are confused. But we shouldn't want to make man more human. We should want to become divine! Justification and Sanctification are not brought forth. Now the Church is a servant of mankind? Even a king acts as a "servant" for the common good, but he rules rather than serves. To be of the image we need divine intellect and will. The document says it "bares about an element of the divine." If its not talking about grace, then what? It even talks about the "Brotherhood of Man." The Free Masons use that phrase a lot, too. And they mean it in the same way Gaudiam et Spes does. Free Masons mean what you think of. One big world where everybody drinks Coca-Cola holding hands. This departs from the Church's perennial view that we are brothers in the true sense that God is Father, and the Church is Mother. We share in the divine sonship. If you try to fit this definition in the document it doesn't make sense. It all starts with idea that Christ came to serve and not judge is not traditional, nor biblical.
How does the Church judge. In the confessional with penance and absolution. Excommunication and Anathema. Can we use contraception? The Church has passed her judgment on that, as well. The Church is here to judge! Well, does mankind desire to be saved, or not? There is a lot of talk about all this "aspirating." Its all New Age, critical and swift upheaval. Current trends lead to ecumenism. There is a new vision (Free Masonic) where we are all citizens of the world (really Free Masonic) "civis" of a "civitas" with one state with the order to the service of man? or God? (St. Augustine talks about how these two are very different.) In justice, what do we owe God? Our conscience is an act the intellect makes regarding the morality of a decision. *Morality involves God.
Another quote "To develop [Man's] dignity" that page comes strait out of the United Nations. Is man really asking deep questions today? Is the person playing Halo 3 on the couch really asking "what is my vocation?" This document declares "All things should be ordained to man for the center and summit." What happened to dying to oneself, may I ask? Are we born free? Guadiam et Spes makes a good case for that idea. Man can do whatever he wants.
"Adam and Eve had the first relationship between persons." Does the Church not remember Adam and Gods relationship. *Freedom is the capacity to choose between two varying goods... so is it my freedom is protected or my freedom is restricted.
Nowhere does this document mention Communism, which so many hoped it would. Does only a body belong to the state? Does the soul belong to God? Does only the soul belong to God, or the body, too?
Holy Fathers Francis and Dominic
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
on De Verbum
November 11, 1965 on Divine Revelation...
**What is below is my shorthand mixed with my own thoughts. This post is a note/thought dump and may not make sense! If I can clarify anything, please let me know so I can edit/explain further.**
Msgr Ghardini says this Council shouldn't be weighted as much as the others. In the constitutions, only the repeated dogmas are infallible. Anything new, not dogmatic, no definitions, no condemnations.
Revelation by scripture and tradition. Two sources.
Inspiration-Movement of the Holy Ghost. Whereby God directs the writing of human authors so that those and only those things that God wishes are written. Nothing more, nothing less is there that is meant to be there. Only Scripture is inspired (written.) Even eccuminical councils are not written in only the words that God wants. Infalibility and Inspiration are not the same thing. Councils that are infalible are only protected for writing something erroneous.
Scripture is inerrant. No error. None. Not just in theology, not just morals. We're talking geographical, chronological, etc, becuase God cannot direct error to happen. Inerrant is not restricted. It excludes/forbids error. There is no difference... no split between God and the human authors. They couldn't even think of something wrong. It is not true to say "only the religious elements are infalible." That was condemned in 1920. Words are dictated by the Holy Ghost to the person writing.
1) Devine Revelation- all recolation ended with the death of the last apostle, St. John. Traditionally the will submits, and the intellect receives the Content of Faith. These "truths revealed" are "communicated by God himself. Now, people don't want to adhear to God Himself but to man. That leaves room for protestants, Jews, etc. The Truths of the Faith are learnable things, not experiences.
2) "From the Gospel comes truth, morals." What about tradition? That is the other source. It doesn't talk about it at all. The deposit of Faith is dead to the Modern Man. They talk about the living Gospel They really wanted it to grow and change. Can you believe Nicea, Trent, in the same way the Church believed it then. Or were we wrong then about the meaning, and "now we've grown." The apostles receives, and the hierarchy gives to the people. Now there is a move to blur the lines. Make the teaching church and the lay people equals... Tradition is now subordinate. "It just sheds light on scripture."
The idea behind this is "If we can put tradition on the back burner, then we can focus on scripture. That way we can talk to protestants on an even playing field. You bet the protestants who were invited to the Council loved this document. The council may have been "invoked" by the Holy Ghost, but then the hierarchy refused to use the power.
The Holy Ghost was definitely at the Council. He was there to protect the Faith from the liberals binding heresy.
**What is below is my shorthand mixed with my own thoughts. This post is a note/thought dump and may not make sense! If I can clarify anything, please let me know so I can edit/explain further.**
Msgr Ghardini says this Council shouldn't be weighted as much as the others. In the constitutions, only the repeated dogmas are infallible. Anything new, not dogmatic, no definitions, no condemnations.
Revelation by scripture and tradition. Two sources.
Inspiration-Movement of the Holy Ghost. Whereby God directs the writing of human authors so that those and only those things that God wishes are written. Nothing more, nothing less is there that is meant to be there. Only Scripture is inspired (written.) Even eccuminical councils are not written in only the words that God wants. Infalibility and Inspiration are not the same thing. Councils that are infalible are only protected for writing something erroneous.
Scripture is inerrant. No error. None. Not just in theology, not just morals. We're talking geographical, chronological, etc, becuase God cannot direct error to happen. Inerrant is not restricted. It excludes/forbids error. There is no difference... no split between God and the human authors. They couldn't even think of something wrong. It is not true to say "only the religious elements are infalible." That was condemned in 1920. Words are dictated by the Holy Ghost to the person writing.
1) Devine Revelation- all recolation ended with the death of the last apostle, St. John. Traditionally the will submits, and the intellect receives the Content of Faith. These "truths revealed" are "communicated by God himself. Now, people don't want to adhear to God Himself but to man. That leaves room for protestants, Jews, etc. The Truths of the Faith are learnable things, not experiences.
2) "From the Gospel comes truth, morals." What about tradition? That is the other source. It doesn't talk about it at all. The deposit of Faith is dead to the Modern Man. They talk about the living Gospel They really wanted it to grow and change. Can you believe Nicea, Trent, in the same way the Church believed it then. Or were we wrong then about the meaning, and "now we've grown." The apostles receives, and the hierarchy gives to the people. Now there is a move to blur the lines. Make the teaching church and the lay people equals... Tradition is now subordinate. "It just sheds light on scripture."
The idea behind this is "If we can put tradition on the back burner, then we can focus on scripture. That way we can talk to protestants on an even playing field. You bet the protestants who were invited to the Council loved this document. The council may have been "invoked" by the Holy Ghost, but then the hierarchy refused to use the power.
The Holy Ghost was definitely at the Council. He was there to protect the Faith from the liberals binding heresy.
Monday, December 13, 2010
The sixth sense
On Sacrosanctum Concilium (part II)
**What is below is my shorthand mixed with my own thoughts. This post is a note/thought dump and may not make sense! If I can clarify anything, please let me know so I can edit/explain further.**
to be ecumenical, a council must wither be called by the pope, or haves the pope's approval. Like Nicaea I, called by Constantine. They define doctrine or dogma, and condemn heresy(Infallible.) To be defined, you must positively decree, (its not new revelation) that is to be held by all. The deposit of faith ended with St. John. Cannons, or "rules of faith" condemns whats said. They also can definitively reform aspects of Morals (which will be infallible too)
In 1959 when the Council was called, Belgium, Germany, and France were full of well organized liberals, like Rhienner. The group called the "Schemata" made sure Rhienner got in the council the second time it met. Yes, Vatican II is a council, but it is not infallible in definition. In 1983, it was said that infallibility rests in defining Faith and Morals.
Here is the testimony of four popes that prove Vatican II is fallible.
Oct. 6, '65 "Different from other councils, it is disciplinary and pastoral...avoids infalible teaching"
1964- "Avoided proclaiming infallible dogmatic teaching"
John Paul II- Eccesia Dei, "Vatican to renew committee, perhaps because teachings are new and not well understood."
Benedict XVI (Card. Ratzinger) to the Chilean Episcopal Conference "The truth is [Vatican II] defined no dogma at all, merely pastoral in nature... it chose to remain clear [of exorcising infallibility.] Now the council does have infallible teaching in it...When it repeats existing dogma.... but it cannot give "assent of faith."
John XXIII said on Oct. 11, 1962 "No need for any new definitions. Everything that needed to be defined was already defined!" ....
... A Dogmatic Council? No! Calling a council at this time was most inopportune because of the rampant modernism and liberalism. Sometimes heresy does "help" theologians be more precise. In the face of it they may guard the deposit of faith more efficaciously. Councils always deal with problems in the present time, but what were the problems the Church was dealing with. Communism? No, they didn't touch that. What they did say was "This doesn't touch the fundamentals" and it "should be passed on through MODERN thought." Substance is one thing, expression is another....
The vocabulary is totally different in this Council. Truth is attacked, because the words are not scholastic. Words with more than one meaning are used on purpose. Views of Truth...
Ancients' view- Conformity of the mind to reality
Modernists'- Subjectivity (exact opposite.) Because in the 17th century we learned we can be enlightened by truth, but not know it (and God who is Truth.) You can sense a tree (touch, feel, smell, taste) but you cannot know the "treeness." What about an artificial tree, that is an exact replica, and they even sprayed pine on it, and shellacked it with something that tastes like bark? Is it a tree? You cannot sense that it is not a tree, but you can know that it is not a tree.
Don Bognini was kind of a council father. "we exclude condemnation of errors"
Re clothe truths in modern thought. We need to fix families with a renewal. Archbishop Lefebrve tried to have Vatican II condemn Communism, but it was never touched.
Councils are not inspired. It would be heresy to say that Vatican II was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Just like it would be heresy to claim that Vatican I or even Trent was inspired. Only sacred scripture is inspired!
How does a liturgical document get started. Don Gueranger restored the Benedictine Abbey of Solemes. He was very Anti liturgical-heresy. He compiled Gregorian Chant and came up with a missal for the people. He really wanted to bring the people to liturgy. He combated...
Quietism- best thing is to be indifferent. Practice no virtues..."as long as I feel good towards God.
Jansenism- man is utterly wounded. Incapable of doing anything. Cannot approach sacraments unless perfect. What happens... people do not come to the sacraments.
Galicanism- Limited power of the pope in France.
Don Gaspar Lefebrve produced the St. Andrew's Missal. St. Pius X restored liturgy in Chant. Don L. Bodunin joined the Benedictines, but was a secular priest at first. His idea was that to really teach you the Faith. Private prayer/piety is nice, but the individual must give way to the community -public prayer. Bring liturgy to the people vs. bring people to the liturgy. He befriends the future John XXIII in 1924. They really start getting all excited about the parish youth movement. At this time, Archeologism is condemned. That is the idea that everything after about 300 AD is corrupt. And that the Church should go back to the primal means.
But what does "the spirit of Vatican II do?" 35 years later, it turns the altar into a table, it throws out most of the vestments, it makes the Mass "understandable" by dumbing it down.
This document of the Second Vatican Council want laity to get involved with the sacraments unlike they ever were before. All should be involved. And Latin (Western) things were distrusted.
That is why in the New Order there is the influx of the Eastern/Greek "Lord, hear our prayer."
It is "Christian variety."
**What is below is my shorthand mixed with my own thoughts. This post is a note/thought dump and may not make sense! If I can clarify anything, please let me know so I can edit/explain further.**
to be ecumenical, a council must wither be called by the pope, or haves the pope's approval. Like Nicaea I, called by Constantine. They define doctrine or dogma, and condemn heresy(Infallible.) To be defined, you must positively decree, (its not new revelation) that is to be held by all. The deposit of faith ended with St. John. Cannons, or "rules of faith" condemns whats said. They also can definitively reform aspects of Morals (which will be infallible too)
In 1959 when the Council was called, Belgium, Germany, and France were full of well organized liberals, like Rhienner. The group called the "Schemata" made sure Rhienner got in the council the second time it met. Yes, Vatican II is a council, but it is not infallible in definition. In 1983, it was said that infallibility rests in defining Faith and Morals.
Here is the testimony of four popes that prove Vatican II is fallible.
Oct. 6, '65 "Different from other councils, it is disciplinary and pastoral...avoids infalible teaching"
1964- "Avoided proclaiming infallible dogmatic teaching"
John Paul II- Eccesia Dei, "Vatican to renew committee, perhaps because teachings are new and not well understood."
Benedict XVI (Card. Ratzinger) to the Chilean Episcopal Conference "The truth is [Vatican II] defined no dogma at all, merely pastoral in nature... it chose to remain clear [of exorcising infallibility.] Now the council does have infallible teaching in it...When it repeats existing dogma.... but it cannot give "assent of faith."
John XXIII said on Oct. 11, 1962 "No need for any new definitions. Everything that needed to be defined was already defined!" ....
... A Dogmatic Council? No! Calling a council at this time was most inopportune because of the rampant modernism and liberalism. Sometimes heresy does "help" theologians be more precise. In the face of it they may guard the deposit of faith more efficaciously. Councils always deal with problems in the present time, but what were the problems the Church was dealing with. Communism? No, they didn't touch that. What they did say was "This doesn't touch the fundamentals" and it "should be passed on through MODERN thought." Substance is one thing, expression is another....
The vocabulary is totally different in this Council. Truth is attacked, because the words are not scholastic. Words with more than one meaning are used on purpose. Views of Truth...
Ancients' view- Conformity of the mind to reality
Modernists'- Subjectivity (exact opposite.) Because in the 17th century we learned we can be enlightened by truth, but not know it (and God who is Truth.) You can sense a tree (touch, feel, smell, taste) but you cannot know the "treeness." What about an artificial tree, that is an exact replica, and they even sprayed pine on it, and shellacked it with something that tastes like bark? Is it a tree? You cannot sense that it is not a tree, but you can know that it is not a tree.
Don Bognini was kind of a council father. "we exclude condemnation of errors"
Re clothe truths in modern thought. We need to fix families with a renewal. Archbishop Lefebrve tried to have Vatican II condemn Communism, but it was never touched.
Councils are not inspired. It would be heresy to say that Vatican II was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Just like it would be heresy to claim that Vatican I or even Trent was inspired. Only sacred scripture is inspired!
How does a liturgical document get started. Don Gueranger restored the Benedictine Abbey of Solemes. He was very Anti liturgical-heresy. He compiled Gregorian Chant and came up with a missal for the people. He really wanted to bring the people to liturgy. He combated...
Quietism- best thing is to be indifferent. Practice no virtues..."as long as I feel good towards God.
Jansenism- man is utterly wounded. Incapable of doing anything. Cannot approach sacraments unless perfect. What happens... people do not come to the sacraments.
Galicanism- Limited power of the pope in France.
Don Gaspar Lefebrve produced the St. Andrew's Missal. St. Pius X restored liturgy in Chant. Don L. Bodunin joined the Benedictines, but was a secular priest at first. His idea was that to really teach you the Faith. Private prayer/piety is nice, but the individual must give way to the community -public prayer. Bring liturgy to the people vs. bring people to the liturgy. He befriends the future John XXIII in 1924. They really start getting all excited about the parish youth movement. At this time, Archeologism is condemned. That is the idea that everything after about 300 AD is corrupt. And that the Church should go back to the primal means.
But what does "the spirit of Vatican II do?" 35 years later, it turns the altar into a table, it throws out most of the vestments, it makes the Mass "understandable" by dumbing it down.
This document of the Second Vatican Council want laity to get involved with the sacraments unlike they ever were before. All should be involved. And Latin (Western) things were distrusted.
That is why in the New Order there is the influx of the Eastern/Greek "Lord, hear our prayer."
It is "Christian variety."
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Dignitatis Humanis
1965
**What is below is my shorthand mixed with my own thoughts. This post is a note/thought dump and may not make sense! If I can clarify anything, please let me know so I can edit/explain further.**
This is the hardest document for Americans to understand. We take for granted the rights of Man (according to the French Revelation.)"We the people!" Life, Liberty, and (property) the pursuit of happiness. You do what you need to do, as long as you don't hurt anybody and you pay your taxes, and you're good to go. We have a very pluralistic mentality. Well, (it was actually called) "Americanism" was condemned by Pope Leo XIII. He says this pragmatic mindset of "if it works than okay" neglects principal. Principal is primary. Whether it is true or not is not important for American minded people. The French for instance, would rather die for principals, to them it is not about getting along. They killed a king because they didn't like how life was.
For the Catholic mind, error is evil. Ideas can lead you to Hell. Not just morals. Fr. John Murray, Society of Jesus, tried to incorporate American Ideas into ecclesiastical law. If you have more than one religion, there's always going to be an evil. Now, whether you put up with them is a different thing. Now, all Religions are good. Age of Communism. "more interested in personal judgement, not subject to coercion, sense of duties. Existentialism." Man has now "come of age." Christianity treats people like children. Duty of Man to search for the truth. Free by Nature, man cannot be coerced. Innate Freedom to publicly practice his religion.
Now man has the Right to worship according to his conscience. There should be no external force. "the state must recognize inherent right to follow his conscience."
3. Public order. This goes against past teaching! Syllabus of Error. Absolute Naturalism. No regard for religion. Moderate same validity for the true religion as for false religion. Public peace may require. But it is almost word for word condemned! (This document may be whats called the counter-syllabus of Error.) Exorcise virtue so that he may save his soul. True religion can not be treated as a false religion, then people cannot know the difference. If they contradict, then we have a problem. They lead to unbelief. If you treat Evil the way you treat Good, you destroy Good. Not difficult. God provides truths. Inquisition.- St. Pius V (inquisitor himself.) He knew that the act of Faith cannot be forced. You cannot for Baptism. But he and the other inquisitors judged sessions concerning non Catholics on things that you can know by reason. Ex. Sodomy. Jews, Muslims, Catholics, all could be tried, because that is understood by all to be wrong. You could even be excommunicated if you were a civil leader who didn't get rid of heresy. But, if one openly practices and entertains heresy after baptism, they can and should be suppressed.
Religious freedom is condemned under Mirare Vos. Look it up. People do not choose whats herder if they have the choice. And it doesn't get much harder than Catholicism. No divorce. No homosexual marriages. But, recent polls for some reason now, "Catholics" are the biggest supporter of this stuff... then the nut job protestants.
Dignitatis Humanae is simply not realistic. People wont come to Catholicism if its just as good as another religion. Cannot approve a system where schools teach only natural reason. Catholics must not hold that the Church is not the only true religion. Roman Pontiffs must not come to terms with Modernism. Explicitly condemned to do so. Their only goal is to protect and further the True Religion.
It is okay to tolerate a false religion if it leads to a civilization where you end up with a worse situation. (like if it would lead violence) but is that where we are at? Toleration of a false religion is not the same thing as an inherent right of a false religion.
**What is below is my shorthand mixed with my own thoughts. This post is a note/thought dump and may not make sense! If I can clarify anything, please let me know so I can edit/explain further.**
This is the hardest document for Americans to understand. We take for granted the rights of Man (according to the French Revelation.)"We the people!" Life, Liberty, and (property) the pursuit of happiness. You do what you need to do, as long as you don't hurt anybody and you pay your taxes, and you're good to go. We have a very pluralistic mentality. Well, (it was actually called) "Americanism" was condemned by Pope Leo XIII. He says this pragmatic mindset of "if it works than okay" neglects principal. Principal is primary. Whether it is true or not is not important for American minded people. The French for instance, would rather die for principals, to them it is not about getting along. They killed a king because they didn't like how life was.
For the Catholic mind, error is evil. Ideas can lead you to Hell. Not just morals. Fr. John Murray, Society of Jesus, tried to incorporate American Ideas into ecclesiastical law. If you have more than one religion, there's always going to be an evil. Now, whether you put up with them is a different thing. Now, all Religions are good. Age of Communism. "more interested in personal judgement, not subject to coercion, sense of duties. Existentialism." Man has now "come of age." Christianity treats people like children. Duty of Man to search for the truth. Free by Nature, man cannot be coerced. Innate Freedom to publicly practice his religion.
Now man has the Right to worship according to his conscience. There should be no external force. "the state must recognize inherent right to follow his conscience."
3. Public order. This goes against past teaching! Syllabus of Error. Absolute Naturalism. No regard for religion. Moderate same validity for the true religion as for false religion. Public peace may require. But it is almost word for word condemned! (This document may be whats called the counter-syllabus of Error.) Exorcise virtue so that he may save his soul. True religion can not be treated as a false religion, then people cannot know the difference. If they contradict, then we have a problem. They lead to unbelief. If you treat Evil the way you treat Good, you destroy Good. Not difficult. God provides truths. Inquisition.- St. Pius V (inquisitor himself.) He knew that the act of Faith cannot be forced. You cannot for Baptism. But he and the other inquisitors judged sessions concerning non Catholics on things that you can know by reason. Ex. Sodomy. Jews, Muslims, Catholics, all could be tried, because that is understood by all to be wrong. You could even be excommunicated if you were a civil leader who didn't get rid of heresy. But, if one openly practices and entertains heresy after baptism, they can and should be suppressed.
Religious freedom is condemned under Mirare Vos. Look it up. People do not choose whats herder if they have the choice. And it doesn't get much harder than Catholicism. No divorce. No homosexual marriages. But, recent polls for some reason now, "Catholics" are the biggest supporter of this stuff... then the nut job protestants.
Dignitatis Humanae is simply not realistic. People wont come to Catholicism if its just as good as another religion. Cannot approve a system where schools teach only natural reason. Catholics must not hold that the Church is not the only true religion. Roman Pontiffs must not come to terms with Modernism. Explicitly condemned to do so. Their only goal is to protect and further the True Religion.
It is okay to tolerate a false religion if it leads to a civilization where you end up with a worse situation. (like if it would lead violence) but is that where we are at? Toleration of a false religion is not the same thing as an inherent right of a false religion.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Recent thoughts
I wanted to break from the Vatican II series for one more post, and share some thoughts. I saw some pictures recently from a Catholic group on Campus. The pictures were of a Christmas party that was celebrated on Dec. 2nd (the first day of Chanukkah, not that that has anything to do with anything.) Some of my friends dressed up like buffoons, literally ripping up a present. And cheering them on, on all fours (unless he was looking for a lost contact) was a clergyman. I don't know what else to write. I'll try, but what do I say? "What am I doing hanging out with this group" is a start.
They were four days into Advent, and already couldn't stop themselves from opening a present. I don't know what was in there, but I hope it was worth it. St. Nick stopped by... excuse me, Santa. Maybe he was called St. Nick, I hope not, I don't think St. Nicholas would be to happy with how he was portrayed at a "Catholic event." The pictures were sick, everybody was standing on chairs, giving high fives. Its like an extension of Life Teen. Could you imagine Our Lady standing on chairs, celebrating the birth of her Son three weeks early?
What do you call the age that is in between "Teen" and "Adult." Maybe "young-adult?" Well, whatever you want to call that age, no one was acting like it.
"When I was a child, I thought as a child, I spoke as a child. But when I became a man, I put away the things of a child." St. Paul tells us in his first Epistle to the Corinthians.
How will these poor kids grow spiritually if they are subjected to cake all the time. I don't buy the "not everybody is ready be a hard-core Catholic, so you have to compromise" argument. It is true, not everybody is ready. But don't piss on them and tell them it's raining. If you want to be Catholic, you must reject the world. Jesus Christ and every saint has taught that. What I saw in the pictures was "the world." I just pray that I have the strength to continue to avoid that stuff. I cannot wait until Christmastide, when I can worthily celebrate the Nativity. Until then, Ill keep saying the Joyful Mysteries. I hope you'll join me.
To end with a short prayer...
O Redeemer, born in humility, lived in humility, died in humility, teach me this virtue. Let me know where I stand before Thee. Let me not be intoxicated with the pleasures of the world in the season before Thy Nativity. Help me to avoid paganism and frivility. Grant me the grace to be charitable when I talk about Thee and defend Thy season of Advent. I'm sorry I typed a vulgar word up there, but I was angry. I hope this is justified anger. If it is not, purge me of it. Let me die to myself, so that I may reign with Thee, now, in Christmastide, and forever. Amen.
They were four days into Advent, and already couldn't stop themselves from opening a present. I don't know what was in there, but I hope it was worth it. St. Nick stopped by... excuse me, Santa. Maybe he was called St. Nick, I hope not, I don't think St. Nicholas would be to happy with how he was portrayed at a "Catholic event." The pictures were sick, everybody was standing on chairs, giving high fives. Its like an extension of Life Teen. Could you imagine Our Lady standing on chairs, celebrating the birth of her Son three weeks early?
What do you call the age that is in between "Teen" and "Adult." Maybe "young-adult?" Well, whatever you want to call that age, no one was acting like it.
"When I was a child, I thought as a child, I spoke as a child. But when I became a man, I put away the things of a child." St. Paul tells us in his first Epistle to the Corinthians.
How will these poor kids grow spiritually if they are subjected to cake all the time. I don't buy the "not everybody is ready be a hard-core Catholic, so you have to compromise" argument. It is true, not everybody is ready. But don't piss on them and tell them it's raining. If you want to be Catholic, you must reject the world. Jesus Christ and every saint has taught that. What I saw in the pictures was "the world." I just pray that I have the strength to continue to avoid that stuff. I cannot wait until Christmastide, when I can worthily celebrate the Nativity. Until then, Ill keep saying the Joyful Mysteries. I hope you'll join me.
To end with a short prayer...
O Redeemer, born in humility, lived in humility, died in humility, teach me this virtue. Let me know where I stand before Thee. Let me not be intoxicated with the pleasures of the world in the season before Thy Nativity. Help me to avoid paganism and frivility. Grant me the grace to be charitable when I talk about Thee and defend Thy season of Advent. I'm sorry I typed a vulgar word up there, but I was angry. I hope this is justified anger. If it is not, purge me of it. Let me die to myself, so that I may reign with Thee, now, in Christmastide, and forever. Amen.
The Gift of Baptism!
I saw the most beautiful baptism. It was of an adult (a girl about my age) who was born unto Eternal Life last Wednesday on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. A brief description of the 48 min ceremony.
She was questioned in the vestibule ("outside the Church").
What do you seek? Do you renounce Satan? Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, etc? She knelt down three diffrent times and said the Lord's Prayer each by rising and saying Amen. Tasted the salt of wisdom, and after about 30 minutes of exorcisms, she was ready to be brought into the church. About half way into the nave, she laid prostrate for a few moments. This is when I was a little overwhelmed. I couldn't begin to imagine what was going through her mind, but I can tell you what was going through mine. I just wanted to lay on the ground with her, adore God, tell Him I was sorry for everything I have done to hurt him since my baptism. Promise Him that I would be a good tabernacle for Him to reign from, that I would rather die like Saint Bartholomew then to loose what was about to be given to me. Then I gave thanks, and was so happy that anyone (including me, the biggest sinner I know) could renew the promises of Baptism with one good Confession. She then arose, looking stronger than ever. We all said the Creed. Her ears were open with saliva, her breast and back were anointed with oil. At last, she moved on to the baptismal font. She was anointed one last time, then Baptized in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. A candle was given to her, and she donned the white garment of new Christians.
We can all be as pure as this dove. With a proper examination of conscience, and true contrition for our sins, and the Sacrament of Penance, we will be reconciled to Our Father who is in Heaven.
She was questioned in the vestibule ("outside the Church").
What do you seek? Do you renounce Satan? Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, etc? She knelt down three diffrent times and said the Lord's Prayer each by rising and saying Amen. Tasted the salt of wisdom, and after about 30 minutes of exorcisms, she was ready to be brought into the church. About half way into the nave, she laid prostrate for a few moments. This is when I was a little overwhelmed. I couldn't begin to imagine what was going through her mind, but I can tell you what was going through mine. I just wanted to lay on the ground with her, adore God, tell Him I was sorry for everything I have done to hurt him since my baptism. Promise Him that I would be a good tabernacle for Him to reign from, that I would rather die like Saint Bartholomew then to loose what was about to be given to me. Then I gave thanks, and was so happy that anyone (including me, the biggest sinner I know) could renew the promises of Baptism with one good Confession. She then arose, looking stronger than ever. We all said the Creed. Her ears were open with saliva, her breast and back were anointed with oil. At last, she moved on to the baptismal font. She was anointed one last time, then Baptized in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. A candle was given to her, and she donned the white garment of new Christians.
We can all be as pure as this dove. With a proper examination of conscience, and true contrition for our sins, and the Sacrament of Penance, we will be reconciled to Our Father who is in Heaven.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Nostrae Aetate
Oct. 1965 On non Christian Religion
**What is below is my shorthand mixed with my own thoughts. This post is a note/thought dump and may not make sense! If I can clarify anything, please let me know so I can edit/explain further.**
If you're non-Catholic, can you be saved? Baptism of desire...
(explicit) Unity to the Church by explicit desire (catechists)
(implicit) What about all the New World before the missionaries came bringing the Gospel? What about their ancestors? Was there salvation for them? Well yes, there could be, but supernatural Faith, Hope, and Charity would be needed when you die. Underlying theme of how you can say others in different religions can be saved.
Invincible ignorance- vincible is willful. If you took the necessary means you could know the truth, then it is not invincible. (Like if you choose not to read Card. Hoyos's declaration on whether the SSPX is schismatic, you are not left in invincible ignorance.) But if you lived in a jungle and no missionaries have come to your tribe yet, then you can claim it.
Invincible doesn't save, it just excuses guilt. But God still gives them grace to do good, and avoid evil. Friendship between Christians, that is men of good will.
Community- organization of man. But should we have one community? No! There shouldn't be a one-world religion that compromises so everybody can worship together. "Quest for God?" Excuse me, God has already revealed the Faith, we don't have to search for anything. (but its true, you can still grow, if that's what you mean by "quest")
This document talks about "one human race" with "one common destiny" and "exist in peace" (a peace without truth.) Mutual appreciation of different religions. What about St. Boniface, who desecrated the pagan's holy groves by chopping a tree down himself? St. Justin Martyr gets brought up. But, is this mutual appreciation what St. Justin martyr talked about when he spoke of seeds of the Gospel? Other non-Christians are now having "authentic religious experiences leading them to Catholicism. (yeah, maybe the Anglican bishops, but that's more intellectual and less "emotional." I don't see many Buddhists packing the parish seats after they reach enlightenment. There is a basis in common, sure. They are pretty nice to their neighbor. But that can be natural. They deny the supernatural. Pope Benedict says that St. Justin was talking about philosophy, NOT RELIGION in his series that made him a doctor of the Church, okay, but that's not like the council taught. Other religions are not fruits of the "search for Truth."
Science says primitive religion was monotheistic. The more you advance, the further you get away from one God, though. Starts with Hinduism. They haven't discovered any divine mystery. It says they worship God, free from the illusions of this world.There is no condemnation of anything false. Buddhism can strive to obtain the enlightened one. St. Francis Xavier went to Sri Lanka. He converted the little Hindus and told them o go destroy the temple. Because that was true Ecumenism.
Lets just leave them in invincible ignorance. Do religions lead you to God? Away? In history, saints destroyed everything they could get there hands on. The Catholic rejects other religions. The gods of other religions are fallen angels. They deceive. the Church sent missionaries against their "better judgement" (they knew they would probably die) to convert the natives. BECAUSE OTHER RELIGIONS DONT SAVE.
Even if a cookie is 99% good, and 1% poison, it will still kill you. Just like if a false religion is almost there, but they still deny Christ, it will still send you to Hell. The document talks about preserving some of the cultural influence. Well, St. Pius X says the Catholic culture is superior to others. Vatican II has a high regard for Muslims? Bl. Urban II waged a war on them! St. Catherine of Sienna called them "infidel dogs" and supported the Crusades. St. Joan of Arc did, too. Muslims worship a God who "has spoken to man" in the Koran. No condemnation of any falsity. They believe in Jesus, but not as God. Yet they worship a god without the second Person of the Trinity. (in alms, fasting, prayer, sometimes even invoke the Blessed Virgin Mary.(I don't remember why I wrote this. Maybe the Muslims do?)) St. Bernard of Clairvaux preached the necessity of the Second Crusade, But John Paul II apologizes for it.
The Document is only on how other religions unite. Not how they are wrong. The Church is a Mystery (see last blog, yeah, back to that again.) We are all linked by "spiritual ties." God revealed the truth to the Jews in sight of Christ. If we draw from the original 12 disciples (pretty much all Jews) we get the Truth. But now is not the time to draw anything from the Jews or Gentiles. St. Peter and St. John went into the temples, but why? God still loves them! He pushes them towards the Church, but now, their rites are no longer a valid means. They even think they cannot enter heaven because their has been no savior. Just like we are wounded by Adam's sin, Jews are caught up in their curse. "Let His blood be on us and our children." True, they are not personally responsible for for the actual crime.
So are we not supposed to persecute anybody anymore? What about Communism? What about the Nazi SS after the war? Yeah, well they actually committed crimes against humanity! Ecumenical Council Lateran IV forbids Jews from holding office. That is punishment for them committing the Crime against Humanity. The Fourth Lateran Council also says that Jews must be marked if in public to be kept separate. That's your Faith, ladies and gentlemen. As a Catholic, you must believe what this council binds and what it condemns. Don't talk to me about Vatican II if you're not willing to talk about Lateran IV. And Lateran IV was a doctrinal council. Vatican II is Pastoral, what ever that means (it means it doesn't bind.)
The Church reproves to the mind of Christ the discrimination or harassment of any man. This is Rejection of everything taught before.
St. Boniface, pray for us,
St. Justin Martyr, pray for us,
St. Francis Xavier, pray for us,
St. Pius X, pray for us,
Bl. Urabn II, pray for us,
St. Catherine of Sienna, pray for us,
St. Joan of Arc, pray for us,
St. Bernard of Clairvaux, pray for us,
St. Peter, pray for us,
St. John, pray for us.
**What is below is my shorthand mixed with my own thoughts. This post is a note/thought dump and may not make sense! If I can clarify anything, please let me know so I can edit/explain further.**
If you're non-Catholic, can you be saved? Baptism of desire...
(explicit) Unity to the Church by explicit desire (catechists)
(implicit) What about all the New World before the missionaries came bringing the Gospel? What about their ancestors? Was there salvation for them? Well yes, there could be, but supernatural Faith, Hope, and Charity would be needed when you die. Underlying theme of how you can say others in different religions can be saved.
Invincible ignorance- vincible is willful. If you took the necessary means you could know the truth, then it is not invincible. (Like if you choose not to read Card. Hoyos's declaration on whether the SSPX is schismatic, you are not left in invincible ignorance.) But if you lived in a jungle and no missionaries have come to your tribe yet, then you can claim it.
Invincible doesn't save, it just excuses guilt. But God still gives them grace to do good, and avoid evil. Friendship between Christians, that is men of good will.
Community- organization of man. But should we have one community? No! There shouldn't be a one-world religion that compromises so everybody can worship together. "Quest for God?" Excuse me, God has already revealed the Faith, we don't have to search for anything. (but its true, you can still grow, if that's what you mean by "quest")
This document talks about "one human race" with "one common destiny" and "exist in peace" (a peace without truth.) Mutual appreciation of different religions. What about St. Boniface, who desecrated the pagan's holy groves by chopping a tree down himself? St. Justin Martyr gets brought up. But, is this mutual appreciation what St. Justin martyr talked about when he spoke of seeds of the Gospel? Other non-Christians are now having "authentic religious experiences leading them to Catholicism. (yeah, maybe the Anglican bishops, but that's more intellectual and less "emotional." I don't see many Buddhists packing the parish seats after they reach enlightenment. There is a basis in common, sure. They are pretty nice to their neighbor. But that can be natural. They deny the supernatural. Pope Benedict says that St. Justin was talking about philosophy, NOT RELIGION in his series that made him a doctor of the Church, okay, but that's not like the council taught. Other religions are not fruits of the "search for Truth."
Science says primitive religion was monotheistic. The more you advance, the further you get away from one God, though. Starts with Hinduism. They haven't discovered any divine mystery. It says they worship God, free from the illusions of this world.There is no condemnation of anything false. Buddhism can strive to obtain the enlightened one. St. Francis Xavier went to Sri Lanka. He converted the little Hindus and told them o go destroy the temple. Because that was true Ecumenism.
Lets just leave them in invincible ignorance. Do religions lead you to God? Away? In history, saints destroyed everything they could get there hands on. The Catholic rejects other religions. The gods of other religions are fallen angels. They deceive. the Church sent missionaries against their "better judgement" (they knew they would probably die) to convert the natives. BECAUSE OTHER RELIGIONS DONT SAVE.
Even if a cookie is 99% good, and 1% poison, it will still kill you. Just like if a false religion is almost there, but they still deny Christ, it will still send you to Hell. The document talks about preserving some of the cultural influence. Well, St. Pius X says the Catholic culture is superior to others. Vatican II has a high regard for Muslims? Bl. Urban II waged a war on them! St. Catherine of Sienna called them "infidel dogs" and supported the Crusades. St. Joan of Arc did, too. Muslims worship a God who "has spoken to man" in the Koran. No condemnation of any falsity. They believe in Jesus, but not as God. Yet they worship a god without the second Person of the Trinity. (in alms, fasting, prayer, sometimes even invoke the Blessed Virgin Mary.(I don't remember why I wrote this. Maybe the Muslims do?)) St. Bernard of Clairvaux preached the necessity of the Second Crusade, But John Paul II apologizes for it.
The Document is only on how other religions unite. Not how they are wrong. The Church is a Mystery (see last blog, yeah, back to that again.) We are all linked by "spiritual ties." God revealed the truth to the Jews in sight of Christ. If we draw from the original 12 disciples (pretty much all Jews) we get the Truth. But now is not the time to draw anything from the Jews or Gentiles. St. Peter and St. John went into the temples, but why? God still loves them! He pushes them towards the Church, but now, their rites are no longer a valid means. They even think they cannot enter heaven because their has been no savior. Just like we are wounded by Adam's sin, Jews are caught up in their curse. "Let His blood be on us and our children." True, they are not personally responsible for for the actual crime.
So are we not supposed to persecute anybody anymore? What about Communism? What about the Nazi SS after the war? Yeah, well they actually committed crimes against humanity! Ecumenical Council Lateran IV forbids Jews from holding office. That is punishment for them committing the Crime against Humanity. The Fourth Lateran Council also says that Jews must be marked if in public to be kept separate. That's your Faith, ladies and gentlemen. As a Catholic, you must believe what this council binds and what it condemns. Don't talk to me about Vatican II if you're not willing to talk about Lateran IV. And Lateran IV was a doctrinal council. Vatican II is Pastoral, what ever that means (it means it doesn't bind.)
The Church reproves to the mind of Christ the discrimination or harassment of any man. This is Rejection of everything taught before.
St. Boniface, pray for us,
St. Justin Martyr, pray for us,
St. Francis Xavier, pray for us,
St. Pius X, pray for us,
Bl. Urabn II, pray for us,
St. Catherine of Sienna, pray for us,
St. Joan of Arc, pray for us,
St. Bernard of Clairvaux, pray for us,
St. Peter, pray for us,
St. John, pray for us.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
on Lumen Gentium
Nov. 21, 1964
On the Church
**What is below is my shorthand mixed with my own thoughts. This post is a note/thought dump and may not make sense! If I can clarify anything, please let me know so I can edit/explain further.**
We started this meeting off by talking about Cardinal Gharardini. He is a Canon in St. Peter's who wrote a book that came out this year called Vatican II: A much needed discussion. This is what he said in a nut shell. The Church didn't start with Vatican II, the council was not infallible, and that Vatican II was basically the destruction of Papal authority. He reiterates what all the Popes have said since the council (and is blatantly ignored) that Vatican II was not dogmatic, and nothing new is to be believed. Therefore if you deny of the new things, you are not a heretic.
De Fide means "from faith." It is when something is judged or condemned by Faith. Not only can Vatican II err, it has erred. Statements need to be made on weight, and it needs to address the parts that are not congruent with tradition.
It defines the Church as being the kingdom of Heaven founded in mystery-means of salvation (sacrament.) Establishes unity. The visible establishment Christ founded with a hierarchy. A political order also establishes unity in the natural order. (Remember, the document is written in Latin.) Key parts of this definition are written in the subjunctive case: what you use when it is not a statement of certainty. Indicative is the case that should have been used, but they chose to use subjunctive. Why?
This is the traditional definition of the Church. The visible, supernatural, perfect (not lacking anything to accomplish its goal) society which is united by a union in faith, subjection to (legitimate hierarchy) to the Pope, and which shares the same sacraments for the glory of God and the salvation of souls. (I think founded by Christ is implied, or maybe I didn't write it down.)
Leo XIII and Pius XII did say the Church was the mystical body (material) of Christ, and bodies are seen. Therefore the Church cannot be invisible, nor solely spiritual. It has five marks... the One, Holy, Roman, Catholic, Apostolic Church. (St?) Mary of Agreta, a Franciscan missionary said the Holy Ghost vivifies the Church, moves, makes holy, is the soul.
What about non-Catholic churches? Vatican II's concept of society is about
1) the Church is a mystery and cannot be seen by all... unlike the old definition: a visible society. It is unknowable in its essence...well, thats not totally untrue, as finite beings, we cant see the entire universe as God sees it, and the beatific vision is witheld from us. But the non-Catholics mean it more along the lines of "don't try to figure out the soul, its too complicated." The church "discovers" its nature. That's weird, what does that mean.
2) Holy effects which others have. So the Holy Ghost doesn't hesitate to use members of heretics?
3) Subsists in the Catholic Church? No! The truth is the Church, it doesn't subside in it. This is problematic. If the true society only subsists in the Church, it is not efficacious.
4) Communion (not membership basis of unity) not the traditional way. One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. Totally new-Baptism is, not communion. If you lack Faith, you don't have anything.
It talks about the "people of God." This doesn't sound heretical, but it is written not as the Catholic understanding. First comes Christ, he brings the twelve. First comes Moses, then Aaron, then the tribes. Then you understand the "people of God." But in the modern terms, "people of God" is now like "we the people." Nowhere does it talk about the Church Militant. Supreme authority resides in the Pope and the college of Bishops, led by the pope. Nowhere is the Vicar of Christ/Successor of Peter mentioned.
Consecration comes from the apostolic succession. The Power of Orders and the Power of Jurisdiction are two different powers. One comes first, then the other can be granted. But all of the sudden, now apparently you get both at the same time. Just like the Orthodox. They have validly consecrated bishops and orders. But consecration gives you the power to receive jurisdiction. (I don't know where we were going with this.)
Against the Council Fathers, Pope Paul VI exercised powers without them. It was called "Black Tuesday." The Catholic church does not hesitate to call the Blessed Mother our Mediatrix. But he did not condemn, and did not affirm. There were Protestants and Orthodox at the Council, and they talked with the council Fathers.
Okay, so I have no idea what half these notes mean. I remember it all making sense when I took them, but this was like 6 months ago. I am half tempted to not post this, but I know how few people read it. soo....for the two of you out there.... let me try to sum the differences. Tradition says that the True Church must be seen, you must be able to put your finger on it, and outside of it, God does not use other religions to save souls. Now, the Church is actually a mystery, that we can't quite figure out. But Vatican II is pretty sure that the fullness of Truth exists in the Roman Church. It uses a lot of vague flowery words to get around saying that there is an apostolic line that only can claim Truth for its own.
Also, a bishop can consecrate a priest and it be valid, but the new bishop is only then able to receive jurisdiction from the Pope. Also, Paul VI actually acted without the Council, and that is totally within his limits.
On the Church
**What is below is my shorthand mixed with my own thoughts. This post is a note/thought dump and may not make sense! If I can clarify anything, please let me know so I can edit/explain further.**
We started this meeting off by talking about Cardinal Gharardini. He is a Canon in St. Peter's who wrote a book that came out this year called Vatican II: A much needed discussion. This is what he said in a nut shell. The Church didn't start with Vatican II, the council was not infallible, and that Vatican II was basically the destruction of Papal authority. He reiterates what all the Popes have said since the council (and is blatantly ignored) that Vatican II was not dogmatic, and nothing new is to be believed. Therefore if you deny of the new things, you are not a heretic.
De Fide means "from faith." It is when something is judged or condemned by Faith. Not only can Vatican II err, it has erred. Statements need to be made on weight, and it needs to address the parts that are not congruent with tradition.
It defines the Church as being the kingdom of Heaven founded in mystery-means of salvation (sacrament.) Establishes unity. The visible establishment Christ founded with a hierarchy. A political order also establishes unity in the natural order. (Remember, the document is written in Latin.) Key parts of this definition are written in the subjunctive case: what you use when it is not a statement of certainty. Indicative is the case that should have been used, but they chose to use subjunctive. Why?
This is the traditional definition of the Church. The visible, supernatural, perfect (not lacking anything to accomplish its goal) society which is united by a union in faith, subjection to (legitimate hierarchy) to the Pope, and which shares the same sacraments for the glory of God and the salvation of souls. (I think founded by Christ is implied, or maybe I didn't write it down.)
Leo XIII and Pius XII did say the Church was the mystical body (material) of Christ, and bodies are seen. Therefore the Church cannot be invisible, nor solely spiritual. It has five marks... the One, Holy, Roman, Catholic, Apostolic Church. (St?) Mary of Agreta, a Franciscan missionary said the Holy Ghost vivifies the Church, moves, makes holy, is the soul.
What about non-Catholic churches? Vatican II's concept of society is about
1) the Church is a mystery and cannot be seen by all... unlike the old definition: a visible society. It is unknowable in its essence...well, thats not totally untrue, as finite beings, we cant see the entire universe as God sees it, and the beatific vision is witheld from us. But the non-Catholics mean it more along the lines of "don't try to figure out the soul, its too complicated." The church "discovers" its nature. That's weird, what does that mean.
2) Holy effects which others have. So the Holy Ghost doesn't hesitate to use members of heretics?
3) Subsists in the Catholic Church? No! The truth is the Church, it doesn't subside in it. This is problematic. If the true society only subsists in the Church, it is not efficacious.
4) Communion (not membership basis of unity) not the traditional way. One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. Totally new-Baptism is, not communion. If you lack Faith, you don't have anything.
It talks about the "people of God." This doesn't sound heretical, but it is written not as the Catholic understanding. First comes Christ, he brings the twelve. First comes Moses, then Aaron, then the tribes. Then you understand the "people of God." But in the modern terms, "people of God" is now like "we the people." Nowhere does it talk about the Church Militant. Supreme authority resides in the Pope and the college of Bishops, led by the pope. Nowhere is the Vicar of Christ/Successor of Peter mentioned.
Consecration comes from the apostolic succession. The Power of Orders and the Power of Jurisdiction are two different powers. One comes first, then the other can be granted. But all of the sudden, now apparently you get both at the same time. Just like the Orthodox. They have validly consecrated bishops and orders. But consecration gives you the power to receive jurisdiction. (I don't know where we were going with this.)
Against the Council Fathers, Pope Paul VI exercised powers without them. It was called "Black Tuesday." The Catholic church does not hesitate to call the Blessed Mother our Mediatrix. But he did not condemn, and did not affirm. There were Protestants and Orthodox at the Council, and they talked with the council Fathers.
Okay, so I have no idea what half these notes mean. I remember it all making sense when I took them, but this was like 6 months ago. I am half tempted to not post this, but I know how few people read it. soo....for the two of you out there.... let me try to sum the differences. Tradition says that the True Church must be seen, you must be able to put your finger on it, and outside of it, God does not use other religions to save souls. Now, the Church is actually a mystery, that we can't quite figure out. But Vatican II is pretty sure that the fullness of Truth exists in the Roman Church. It uses a lot of vague flowery words to get around saying that there is an apostolic line that only can claim Truth for its own.
Also, a bishop can consecrate a priest and it be valid, but the new bishop is only then able to receive jurisdiction from the Pope. Also, Paul VI actually acted without the Council, and that is totally within his limits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)