The Crisis is so sad.

[Marybonita]

" No chance on starting more files like that?"

"It would kill too many trees."

 

Dismas, thanks for the laugh.

 

"there's no heresy in Vatican II. The heresy comes from the Modernists interpreting the documents, which they wrote to allow such interpretation, and Modernism has already been declared heresy."

 

Paul: I don't know if you are thinking clearly in the above quote but you have certainly zeroed in on a puzzle which can make your head hurt if you try to fathom it. The line of thinking goes like this:

 

Vatican II was a council of the Church. It was hijacked by the modernists; interpreted by modernists but because of premise I it must be OK. The evidence contradicts that because the Church is clearly sick. But because of premise I it must still be OK. It defies logic.

 

And I think the answer lies in the interpretation of defectability. Because of the "Petrine Promise" the Church - despite all the evidence - must be OK because Jesus Christ said so. But that does not preclude radical solutions to radical situations.

 

Our times are not unprecedented. In the 16th century English Catholics had to choose between Pope and King. In the 19th century French Catholics had to choose between juring vs. non-juring priests. We now have to choose between licit priests tainted with modernism vs. illicit priests attached to the true Church.

 

~In JMJ

 

 

[Paul]

Please read this section from CoT

But, lest the people, aware of the abrogation of the Mosaic Law, may imagine that the precepts of the Decalogue are no longer obligatory, it should be taught that when God gave the Law to Moses, He did not so much establish a new code, as render more luminous that divine light b which the depraved morals and long­continued perversity of man had at that time almost obscured. It is most certain that we are not bound to obey the Commandments because they were delivered by Moses, but because they are implanted in the hearts of all, and have been explained and confirmed by Christ our Lord.

Which is what I said earlier: the precepts contained in the Ten Commandments remain, and we do not have to obey them as laws given by Moses but as part of the natural law. But, in any event, the specific Commandment under discussion was the 3rd, which was to keep the Sabbath holy. The part specifically concerning Saturday was ceremonial only, and although the Church chose Sunday, there's no reason why she can't permit a Saturday Mass to fulfill the obligation. Many people who do attend the Saturday Mass probably just want to sleep in on Sunday, and I think the law concerning that should be abrogated, but the Church, for now, permits it.

[Paul]

Paul: I don't know if you are thinking clearly in the above quote but you have certainly zeroed in on a puzzle which can make your head hurt if you try to fathom it. The line of thinking goes like this:

Vatican II was a council of the Church. It was hijacked by the modernists; interpreted by modernists but because of premise I it must be OK. The evidence contradicts that because the Church is clearly sick. But because of premise I it must still be OK. It defies logic.

And I think the answer lies in the interpretation of defectability. Because of the "Petrine Promise" the Church - despite all the evidence - must be OK because Jesus Christ said so. But that does not preclude radical solutions to radical situations.

Our times are not unprecedented. In the 16th century English Catholics had to choose between Pope and King. In the 19th century French Catholics had to choose between juring vs. non-juring priests. We now have to choose between licit priests tainted with modernism vs. illicit priests attached to the true Church.

 

I'm not saying everything in the Church is okay - it's not, and modernism, just like Arianism did before, has greatly infected the hierarchy and many of the laity. But I believe the Council itself, despite the ambiguity and the later use the modernists made to implement all sorts of wrong things, does not officially teach heresy. We know Church teaching doesn't change, and there's an interpretation of the documents which is in line with historic teaching. If the only choice were heretical diocesan priests or orthodox SSPX priests, then we should go to the SSPX. But, when there's an indult available, with a priest who knows his faith, I think that's usually the better option. I think we should stick with what's approved by Rome as much as possible, and other groups should be a last resort if we'd otherwise be in danger of losing the faith (and our souls).

[Mark]

Which is what I said earlier: the precepts contained in the Ten Commandments remain, and we do not have to obey them as laws given by Moses but as part of the natural law. But, in any event, the specific Commandment under discussion was the 3rd, which was to keep the Sabbath holy. The part specifically concerning Saturday was ceremonial only, and although the Church chose Sunday, there's no reason why she can't permit a Saturday Mass to fulfill the obligation. Many people who do attend the Saturday Mass probably just want to sleep in on Sunday, and I think the law concerning that should be abrogated, but the Church, for now, permits it.

 

And this is important for me because I no longer have Sundays off from work. There used to be a Sunday evening Mass that I went to (because I work the day shift) when there was two priests here, but since the second priest left they cancelled that Mass and now my only recourse is the Saturday evening Mass. I would much rather go on Sunday, but I have to work during the Mass times in the morning.

 

I used to have Sundays off, but the jobs are by seniority and I was displaced from my Sunday-Monday rest days by a fellow with more seniority than I. But I should be able to hold weekends or partial weekends within a few years as many are retiring in that time.

 

 

On the other subject of the 10 commandments, we learned quite a good lesson about them in Bible Study last Friday. We learned [we're in the Gospel of Matthew] how Christ not only fulfilled them but even perfected them. Such as, pertaining to the commandment about adultery, "You have heard it said thou shalt not commit adultery.... but I say to you that if a man even looks upon a woman with lust in his heart he has committed adultery with her..." correcting the pharisaical obssesion with the letter of the law at the expense of the spirit of the law. 

 

Really good study! You guys should join it!  

 

 

[QuisUtDeus]

Which is what I said earlier: the precepts contained in the Ten Commandments remain, and we do not have to obey them as laws given by Moses but as part of the natural law.  

 

I guess I misunderstood, but this wasn't really clear.

 

Maybe I'm just being overly picky here, but we aren't bound to worship God, honour our parents, not kill, steal, lie, commit adultery, or covet because the Ten Commandments forbid those acts - we must refrain from those things because the New Law forbids them

 

I read it as: the Ten Commandments were abrogated by the Two, and those are forbidden by the two so they're still covered.

 

Anyhow, it doesn't matter.  I agree the Church can allow Saturday observance for the salvation of souls.  However, they couldn't abrogate Sunday because that comes from Tradition (capital T intended).

[QuisUtDeus]

Really good study! You guys should join it!  

 

Is this Lumen's?  I'll try to check it out some time.

[Mark]

Really good study! You guys should join it!  

 

Is this Lumen's?  I'll try to check it out some time.

 

Yep! I can see why he started us in the OT and especially emphasised certain books, because now that we've just entered into the New testament it's SO much more understandable, things make even more sense than they every did before. It got me to start reading Scripture more and again because now I kind of see it with different eyes... It's quite revealing.

 

 

[Paul]

Anyhow, it doesn't matter.  I agree the Church can allow Saturday observance for the salvation of souls.  However, they couldn't abrogate Sunday because that comes from Tradition (capital T intended).

 

I think they could, since it wasn't directly commanded by Jesus, but rather immemorial custom. Do you have something saying that it's a matter of Tradition?

 

[littlepaddle]

 

Anyhow, it doesn't matter.  I agree the Church can allow Saturday observance for the salvation of souls.  However, they couldn't abrogate Sunday because that comes from Tradition (capital T intended).

 

I think they could, since it wasn't directly commanded by Jesus, but rather immemorial custom. Do you have something saying that it's a matter of Tradition?

 

Sunday as the Sabbath is "T" tradition it goes back to the apostles and early church Fathers.  That is why they couldn't change it.  I think what they did was echumenical to appease those who don't have Sunday as a Holy Day.

It has nothing to do with the Salvation of Souls.

Remember it was only a mortal sin if you missed mass on Sunday wihout a good reason.

If you worked on Sunday you were asked to go to mass another day in the week in its place.

You could even get a dispensation from your priest if you wanted to but it wasn't neccessary.

[Paul]

Sunday as the Sabbath is "T" tradition it goes back to the apostles and early church Fathers. That is why they couldn't change it. I think what they did was echumenical to appease those who don't have Sunday as a Holy Day.

 I think it wasn't ecumenism, but a concession to the laziness of modern man, just like the fasting rules and the transference of holy days.
 
 Just because something goes back to the Apostles doesn't make it Tradition. That only makes it immemorial custom. "T"-Tradition  is so-called because it was given to us by Jesus Himself, and is a matter of unchangeable divine law, such as the prohibition on contraception (the Bible does not specifically say "thou shalt not contracept, although there's verses supporting that) or something passed down because it's true, such as theAssumption.

It's not a good idea to mess with "t"-traditions, either, such as the Rosary, since it confuses the faithful and makes it appear that dogmatic matters might also be changed, but if the Church decides to do so, she has the power of the keys, of binding and loosing, granted to her by Jesus.