Concerning Sungenis and Vatican II

[LeoXIII]

Guys, have you heard the sound file he has on his sidebar (front page?)

about an exorcism? Those sounds are scary.

 

[lumengentleman]

Validity?  Um...yes, it was a Church Council.  The bishops and cardinals got together and had a council.  Orthodoxy?  Why can't I question it's orthodoxy?  You cannot compare V I with VII- Vatican I was a dogmatic council, and nothing it said contradicted anything the Church had said before, yet a new dogma came out of it- something that we must believe as Catholics that we didn't "have" to believe before, but something that the Church held as tradition.  Vatican II issued no such statement, it has no such authority.  As such, when something contradicts the Deposit of Faith, it is our duty as Catholics to reject it- not to explain it away and try to do dialogue with it. 

 

Can anyone show me from our 2,000 year-old tradition that there is such a thing as a "pastoral" council, or that a "pastoral" council does not require our assent?

 

Because this whole approach really seems like doctrinal minimalism: I'll only believe it if it's been infallibly defined.

 

I'm pretty sure that even when the popes spoke "fallibly" and in a non-dogmatic way in the past, they still demanded assent, and any Catholic who would have tried to say, "Sorry, Your Holiness, you were speaking pastorally and not dogmatically, and I personally have come to the conclusion that what you said contradicts the faith, so I'm duty-bound to ignore you on this point," would have found himself outside the Church in a hurry.

 

I have a real problem saying that Vatican II "has no such authority" - especially when the documents bear the signature of a valid pope, and end with statements like, "We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God."

 

That sounds like juridical language; that sounds like the "binding and loosing" authority that Christ gave to His vicars.  I'm not sure how we can say that Vatican II lacks authority.  For that matter, Lumen Gentium explicitly addressed the issue of "non-dogmatic" teachings: "This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will." (LG, 25)

 

For that matter, when Paul VI admitted that, "given the pastoral character of the Council, it has avoided any extraordinary pronouncements of dogmas, equipped with the note of infallibility," he immediately followed this statement by saying, "it has, however, given its instructions the authority of the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium (autorità del supremo magistero ordinario) ... and therefore must be received with docility and sincerity (docilmente e sinceramente) by all the faithful ..." (General Audience, 1/12/1966)

 

I would think that at the very least, something promulgated by the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium deserves to be given every benefit of the doubt by the lay-faithful; I would think that we would be more duty-bound to show how the council's teachings can (and must) be harmonized with Tradition than we would be duty-bound to consign them to irrelevancy and reach for Kant instead.

 

Many of the Saints indulged in what you would term "habitual disobedience" many times.  And it is this very fact of their disobedience which made them the saints they are.

 

I am not aware of even one Catholic who directly disobeyed the pope, and was later canonized.

 

Certainly some saints rebuked the pope (St. Paul, St. Catherine); others pleaded with the popes to change their minds, and were successful in doing so; others still suffered wrongly at the hands of popes (St. Athanasius); but I don't know of any saints who "indulged" in "habitual disobedience," and who for "this very fact of their disobedience" were made saints.

 

Not even one.

[MikeSolimanto]

 O.k. call me stupid if you must ,  but could you elaborate more on this? I always thought that baptism,  administered with the correct formula and the right intention (of  conferring a sacrament) was valid even in non-catholic communities,  such as the Orthodox chruch, the Old Catholic churches, the Anglican  church, etc.

 
  First of all I take nothing as an attack as I know you are  good-intentioned and OUR aim is the truth. So don't worry about  "offending" me. As Aristotle said, "I love Plato, but I love the truth  more." If you believe me to be incorrect I want you to say so, just  keep it civil and no name calling.
 
  Yes, the baptism is valid if done properly, but that in no way means  that the ecclesial communities are means of salvation because their  disposition is subjective in how they believe salvation occurs. So a  prot baptism is ontologically a Catholic baptism, with Protestant  beliefs as to what it means.
 

 Well, just because he didn't answer you, doesn't mean that there's no answer.

 
  Well no one has answered the "apparent contradiction" have they? Either  that or Cantate Domino of the Council of Florence was too objective and  needed more subjectivity. If you get a chance read that document, it's  quite good and found online.
   

The "it must be apparent contradiction" is an a priori judgment.

 
  A contradiction is simply the following:
  Statement #1 states something exists (the cat is here)
  Statement #2 states something does not exist (the cat is not here)
  That's not an a priori judgement. I did not judge previously to the statements a priori, but a posteriori.
 
   

That's  how we must approach the Council (and the Bible). You say "you"  have seen contradictions in the Council, but what do the many  theologians who've studied Vatican II have to say?

 
  Well that's who I talked to at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the  Faith, a theologian. I sat down right in his office in Santo Ufficio on  the second floor of the Vatican.
 
 

Are all of them too dumb to notice this supposedly glaring  contradictions? We really need to start listening to what "the other  side" has to say.

 
  Yes, they are that dumb (not that I'm saying you are, but THEY are). He  never heard of Cantate Domino of the Council of Florence and actually  asked me to spell it, and when I recited some of the lines he didn't  believe me that such a document existed or could have said that. When  he realized I was right he simply backed down. How smart do you think  these guys are? Call their bluff with facts and you will see their  house of cards fall.
   

As far as I know, the administering of the Eucharist to  non-catholics is reserved for extreme cases, and only for those who  believe in the Real Presence. Only the eastern orthodox (those who are  not formal schismatics) seem to fulfill this requirement. Here's what  the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about the object of  infallibility:

 
  Actually the Eastern Orthodox can receive from our Churches whenever  they feel like it without restriction, and only Prots need to have a  spiritual advantage and be properly disposed (Canon 844 sections 2-4),  with it's reception being rare (rare as a time frame is not defined).  Also, prior Canon Law stated such reception, even with good will  unintentionally was never permitted. The words never usually mean  exclusivity, hence contradiction. Something cannot be prohibited  without exception, and now there are exceptions without a suspension of  the rational faculty of the intellect.
   

As to moral precepts or laws, as distinct from moral  doctrine, infallibility goes no farther than to protect the Church  against passing universal laws which in principle would be  immoral.

 
  That's my point. I don't see how giving the greatest gift in the world  to someone not a Catholic is moral when it had been immoral and  sacrilegeous for 1930 years. I don't see how a priest could go against  the exact opposite in Canon Law in good faith. I don't see how Cardinal  Ratzinger (before he was made pope) can give Holy Communion to that  "brother" of the Taize community without repentance and abjuration of  error. Would you consider Br. Roger to be dying at the time when this  was a public reception of sacrilege? I believe a theologian/cardinal of  the Church, who is now pope interprets that Canon correctly as it  stands. Br. Roger was not dying at the time. I know many stories, and  particularly one of JPII recommending to a Protestant politician in  France to remain Protestant and continue to receive Our Lord without  converting. He told him not to convert, and I know priests who have  administered this politician Holy Communion.
 

Again,  we need to start listening to what "the other side" says. How do they  justify such an action? I have yet to see any apologetic material in  the traditionalist camp, such as it is found in the so-called  neo-catholic world.

 
  I don't understand the reference to this statement towards the supposed  validity of the Assyrian Orthodox rite without words of Consecration.  How can a priest act in persone Christi in nomine Ecclesia without  Christ's words? Why even have Our Lord period if all you have to do is  figure out why something works and can give salvation and  "soteriological value" to alternate realities other than God and His  Holy Church?
   

Again, not much new is written on religious liberty by  traditionalist "apologists". The same old "Vatican II was wrong because  this is what Pius XI said" just won't do it. We need more people like  Sungenis and Fr. Brian Harrison, who deal with the (really complicated)  issue head on. We cannot keep ignoring our adversaries.

 
  So what you are saying is that if a principle both in thought and in  practice is not only denied, but also contradicted (see Spanish  Constitution changes in 1965 for example) we must accept Robert  Sungenis and Fr. Harrison? If you think I committed a priori mistakes  in applying reason I ask you to reconsider your own position. You said  to point to the theologians of Vatican II, and I can, they admit it was  a contradiction, and one such theologian named Ratzinger called it a  counter-Syllabus. Ratzinger did deal with this head-on, and said it was  against the teachings of Pius IX. The only people I see trying to  defend these "apparent contradictions" can't realize they are promoting  the flags of the rebellion inadvertantly, as I know Fr. Harrison and  Robert to be good men and well-intentioned. Also, if Robert Sungenis  was so good at hitting this head on why didn't he respond to me as he  always has in the past? I wanted to see how he answered his position  that civil rights do not mean moral rights.
 
  Other theologians of the Council admitted what they did was a  revolution and reversed past teachings. If we are to follow the  theologians of the Council, as you say we should, they already told us  their intent and their completion of the intention which was to reverse  previous teaching. Who should I follow? Fr. Harrison and Sungenis or  the men who helped write the documents, who publicly interpret them,  and promulgate them throughout the world? If you want read "In the  Murky Water of Vatican II" with all the theologians proving their  intent and their accomplishments. I can recommend a litany of frankly  disgusting books with men who admit their own evil. This world needs a  shower of prayer.
 
  Lastly, God bless you too and thanks for the civil discourse. May you  have a blessed day tomorrow. If you think I'm wrong, I want you to  grill me.
 

[Sophia]

I have a real problem saying that Vatican II "has no such authority" - especially when the documents bear the signature of a valid pope, and end with statements like, "We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God."

 

The powers of binding and loosing are not so powerful that they can contradict Truth.  In matters of Faith and morals, no pope- no angel- can change that which is True, or can demand adherence to it.  Nothing that is in error can be promulgated for the glory of God.  The documents, only in so far as they are free from error, can be promulgated.  Who is going to determine for us which parts to ignore and which parts to assent to? A lay theologian, or modernist bishop? Such a person could only do so in virtue of what the Church has said before.  In matters where there is a moral doubt, we are bound rather to reject that which is doubtful for the sake of our souls. 

 

 I'll say it again- since no new dogma was declared, Vatican II could not possibly have said anything that the Church has not said before.  Since there are glaring errors in the documents, then it is our duty as Catholics to look to previous statements and councils, and to avoid V II documents, until a future pope can sort it all out and tell us "well they didn't really mean this."  In so far as there is truth in these documents, the traditional Catholic is not rejecting it.

I am not aware of even one Catholic who directly disobeyed the pope, and was later canonized.

 

 

Certainly some saints rebuked the pope (St. Paul, St. Catherine); others pleaded with the popes to change their minds, and were successful in doing so; others still suffered wrongly at the hands of popes (St. Athanasius); but I don't know of any saints who "indulged" in "habitual disobedience," and who for "this very fact of their disobedience" were made saints.

 

Not even one.

 

There are plenty of cases of saints rejecting legitimate authority in matters of Faith and morals.  Cases specifically of disobeying a pope?  In my ignorance, I cannot think of one right now.  That does not change the principle.  A priest who is ordered by the pope to give communion to a non-Catholic is not duty bound to obey that pope, if he were to issue such a command.  The pope may have the power to defrock that priest, but he does not have authority to command someone to sacrilege.   The pope is a man, like any other.  He is the Vicar of Christ on earth, as such he demands our utmost respect and deference, and he has the power to bind and lose, in so far as things can be bound and loosed.  But an immoral law is no law.  He has no power to create a new gospel. 

[lumengentleman]

The powers of binding and loosing are not so powerful that they can contradict Truth.

 

Correct - but then that's your false logical leap, over which we disagree: that Vatican II contradicted the Truth.

 

Or, for that matter, we seem to disagree over whether a layperson is competent to dissect authoritative documents promulgated by the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium and conclude, based on his or her private opinion, that the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium has in fact contradicted the Truth.

 

And please don't respond by saying that it's just "clear" or "plain on the face of it" that Vatican II contradicts the Faith; because Luther said exactly the same thing about his private reading of Scripture.

 

The documents, only in so far as they are free from error, can be promulgated.  Who is going to determine for us which parts to ignore and which parts to assent to?

 

Before we ask that question, let's ask the question before it: where did we get the idea that a layman (or even a priest or bishop for that matter) has the right to sift the teachings of an ecumenical council and "determine" which parts are in error and can be safely ignored, versus which parts are true and should be given assent?

 

Can I sift through Trent or Florence and "determine" that certain parts of those texts are in error?

 

I'll say it again- since no new dogma was declared, Vatican II could not possibly have said anything that the Church has not said before.

 

But that doesn't rule out the fact that V2 certainly could have clarified previously declared dogma.  And whatever it did say, V2 said with the authority of the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium; so are we now to conclude that the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium is capable of teaching error?

 

 There are plenty of cases of saints rejecting legitimate authority in matters of Faith and morals.  Cases specifically of disobeying a pope?  In my ignorance, I cannot think of one right now.  That does not change the principle.

 

Well, ok, just give me an example of what you said: "Many of the Saints indulged in what you would term 'habitual disobedience' many times.  And it is this very fact of their disobedience which made them the saints they are."

 

Give me an example of a Catholic who indulged in "habitual disobedience" and were made saints by "this very fact of their disobedience."

 

The pope is a man, like any other.  He is the Vicar of Christ on earth, as such he demands our utmost respect and deference, and he has the power to bind and lose ...

 

But come on ... we don't really believe that, do we?  It certainly isn't anything that we put into practice; it's like a nice placard we can hang on the wall or put out for window dressing: the pope is the vicar of Christ, he demands our utmost respect and deference, he has the power to bind and loose ... but I haven't listened to a thing he's said in 25 years, and I've scrutinized and criticized his every scandalous move, and I have no problem telling others that they can safely ignore him until he actually teaches something infallibly.

 

I don't know ... all this talk of papal reverence that I hear in our chapels just seems like so much window dressing in light of the way we actually think, speak, and act.

[Sophia]

Well, ok, just give me an example of what you said: "Many of the Saints indulged in what you would term 'habitual disobedience' many times.  And it is this very fact of their disobedience which made them the saints they are."

 

Why? So you can explain them away like you did for St. Paul and St. Catherine?  I don't think any example of the saints would fit the criteria you wish to see.  The principle still remains.

 

Correct - but then that's your false logical leap, over which we disagree: that Vatican II contradicted the Truth.

 

Others, more qualified than I have shown that the documents of Vatican II are problematic.  The opening post in this thread referred to several of them.  Sungenis does not adequately answer Matthew's question- nor does he address the objections in question. Stating that Michael Davies softened his position in later years does not address Davies' arguments.  Sungenis did not refute this:

 

Most of the Conciliar documents could be understood as an expression of the authentic magisterium. Thus, the possibility of error is not theologically impossible at all.

 

He says, "But in no way is a Michael Davies, Fr. Bugnolo or Bishop Lefebvre going to dictate how we should be viewing the Council,"  and then goes on to say that there is room in Gaudium et Spes since there are places where it is not teaching on faith and morals.

[tradcatholicmom]

There is also another problem too; it's not just the documents of VII.  We did not have VII, with its ambiguities and (I personally think) downright heresies, followed by a line of perfectly orthodox Catholic popes who did their best to preserve Tradition.

 

The documents are ambiguous?  We just need to interpret them in the right light?  Well, the last 3 popes have told us how to do so.  Everything they have written, done, and said in their papacies has supported the liberal/heretical interpretations of VII.  We have been repeatedly told that the new ecumenicism, the Judaizing of the Church, the Protestantizing of the Mass, the liturgical fiasco- that all that IS in line with VII.  Other encyclicals have confirmed it, and whenever the Popes have been asked to confirm the liberal interpretations in those encyclicals, either through press statements, their actions, or another encyclical, they have!  I honestly don't see what more they COULD do to reassure us that they did in fact mean the liberal interpretations of the documents.

 

It's insulting to Pope(s) Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI to say "Well, what they REALLY meant to say is...." and give a meaning that is only supported by your desire for them to be saying something Traditional.  They are smart enough to say what they mean to say and act how they mean to act.  I think Traditionalists have more respect for the papacy then Novus Ordo Catholics because we at least give the Popes the credit of being able to write what they meant to write. There is NOTHING, other then good will, to support a traditional interpretation of either VII or the documents that follow thereafter. People can do any amount of twisting they want to make A correspond with B, but that doesn't make it so, and with all due respect to some men on here who are much more read then I am, that is exactly what you're doing.  It's like a liberal philosophy course. Either accept the documents and the interpretations provided for what they are and accept that the Church has changed (which would make you Novus Ordo or Protestant), or take the Traditionalist position.

[LeoXIII]

There is also another problem too; it's not just the documents of VII.  We did not have VII, with its ambiguities and (I personally think) downright heresies, followed by a line of perfectly orthodox Catholic popes who did their best to preserve Tradition.

 

The documents are ambiguous?  We just need to interpret them in the right light?  Well, the last 3 popes have told us how to do so.  Everything they have written, done, and said in their papacies has supported the liberal/heretical interpretations of VII.  We have been repeatedly told that the new ecumenicism, the Judaizing of the Church, the Protestantizing of the Mass, the liturgical fiasco- that all that IS in line with VII.  Other encyclicals have confirmed it, and whenever the Popes have been asked to confirm the liberal interpretations in those encyclicals, either through press statements, their actions, or another encyclical, they have!  I honestly don't see what more they COULD do to reassure us that they did in fact mean the liberal interpretations of the documents.

 

It's insulting to Pope(s) Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI to say "Well, what they REALLY meant to say is...." and give a meaning that is only supported by your desire for them to be saying something Traditional.  They are smart enough to say what they mean to say and act how they mean to act.  I think Traditionalists have more respect for the papacy then Novus Ordo Catholics because we at least give the Popes the credit of being able to write what they meant to write. There is NOTHING, other then good will, to support a traditional interpretation of either VII or the documents that follow thereafter. People can do any amount of twisting they want to make A correspond with B, but that doesn't make it so, and with all due respect to some men on here who are much more read then I am, that is exactly what you're doing.  It's like a liberal philosophy course. Either accept the documents and the interpretations provided for what they are and accept that the Church has changed (which would make you Novus Ordo or Protestant), or take the Traditionalist position.

 

The interesting thing is exactly what you are saying. To the philosopher, all things can be interpretated with enough thought. To the man on the street, it is quite obvious what the popes are saying. And what matters when speaking or writing from the Holy See, is it a transmission to the elite or to the faithful?

 

For example, say I make the comment that there is truth to be found in all religions. Would I be correct? Yes, certainly. Other religions preach love, they I'm sure know the right way to make quilts, the bars of music used in their songs I'm sure correspond with the laws of music, and I am not reluctant to say they may believe in the reality of gravity. So, certainly there is some truth in other religions, just as there are truths in making Eggos.

 

However, when JPII (and the VII) continued to reiterate and make comments alluding to this reality, he harmed the faithful because not everyone is a philosopher. And his consistency not only alleges a pantheism, but his further comments, such as St. John the Baptist protecting Islam make it too clear what his position was....to the commoner, the man on the street.

 

When reading Leo XIII I'm amazed at how clear his writing was. I'm surprised how much it touches the heart of the commoner and doesn't require neither a catering to the lowest denominator, nor the prose of someone with an MA.

 

Now everytime I speak with my NO buddies, people who pride themselves in being catechists, when discussing invincible ignorance their explanation is that we don't know who is in Heaven, who is in Hell and what road one must be on for salvation (since we don't know x will lead to y). When discussing nonCatholics and salvation, everything is prefaced with invincible ignorance arguments, with philosophical "if you think about it....well even if you don't" statements. And most of these men are not philosophers in the least.

 

I think we can analyse VII and JPII as much as we want. The laity did not just come to these conclusions from rebel priests and Mahony like masses. It is time we admit that these errors came from the top and the counter-syllabus has done more damage to Catholicism probably more than any other movement.

 

We can say 'x' was never intended, but hey, you carry a knife, you are likely to stab someone.

 

 

[lumengentleman]

Well, ok, just give me an example of what you said: "Many of the Saints indulged in what you would term 'habitual disobedience' many times.  And it is this very fact of their disobedience which made them the saints they are."

 

Why? So you can explain them away like you did for St. Paul and St. Catherine?

 

 

Why?  Because you made a statement that I think is untrue, and I'm asking you to substantiate it - I don't know of any saints who engaged in habitual disobedience to a pope, much less an ecumenical council.

 

You made the claim; I'm challenging it.

 

I don't think any example of the saints would fit the criteria you wish to see. 

 

The "criteria" is only the criteria you set forth: saints who "indulged" in "habitual disobedience," and more specifically still, became the saints they were precisely because of that "habitual disobedience."

[MikeSolimanto]

I think it gets too simplistic by saying one must be obedient or become  like Luther. In order to fight against Luther we have to fight against  the popes today. We cannot have a pope extol the virtues of Luther and  call him a "common master" of the faith as JPII did. We then would be  saying that in order to be Catholic we have to accept the view of the  popes and find Luther's views in some way acceptable because it would  be disobedient to disagree with him.
 
  And not just Luther, but ecumenism. If the Pope has told us repeatedly  that ecumenism is irrevocable, and the way of the Holy Spirit why do we  fight it? He has asked us all to embrace ecumenism and spread this  wickedness with others.
 
  Why are we traditional when in fact Ecclesia Dei is written as if we  are psychologically unprepared to accept the Novus Ordo? Were the  priests who wouldn't say the New Mass pre-Ecclesia Dei in serious error  for being in disobedience?
 
  Are we prepared to say that sacramental theology is meaningless when we  accept the Anaphora of Mari Addai without words of consecration?
 
  I'm sorry, but the insane are running the asylum and if claiming  obedience to this council was of utmost importance I dare say we are in  big trouble overall spiritually and morally just by following these  wicked statutes. .