Indeed, "Tradidi vobis quod et accepi" was the motto of Archbishop Lefebvre. And yes, Vatican II, and that which followed, directly contradict, in some places, that which was explicitly taught previously.
Vatican II cannot "directly" contradict, as don't forget that Archbishop Lefebvre and other orthodox minded bishops signed off on those Vatican II documents, and he did not have to.
@@CatholicK5357 It is commonly thought that V II documents "cannot" contradict previous teachings, but they do. It is merely a matter of reading the previous documents to realize this. Archbishop Lefebvre signed the documents in good faith, but I think he came to regret his signatures.
@@dorianlelong I have to make a distinction here. The main word that I took issue with was "directly". I do think it possible for the documents to indirectly contradict previous teaching by using ambiguity. But I stand by saying that it is impossible for it to "directly" do so. This is because none of the faithful bishops, including Archbishop Lefebvre would have signed anything that directly contradicted the teachings of the Church, because one cannot support a direct contradiction in "good faith". So to sign in good faith would have to mean that there was no direct contradiction.
The criticism of the person holding the office and the criticism of the office are not the same. The existence of the papacy is mot contingent on the person of Jorge Bergoglio’s existence. The position you are taking that the pope is free from error in every manner he speaks is called the error of ultramontansim. Let me explain. 1. The Deposit of Faith precedes the Apostolic Office. This Deposit is the sum of Truths in the form of propositions. Propositions are the meanings of statements. Our Faith is contained in the Tradition and Scripture in the forms of statements with immutable meanings. This means that the meanings of dogmas cannot change. They can be made more clear in meaning but a statement cannot contradict a past statement that has been held as infallibly certain. When a statement is made that clarifies or explains an already held infallible meaning then that is true development of doctrine but when a statement is made that contradicts an already held meaning then that is either heresy or error. Now it is possible that popes have made statements that contain meanings that are contradictory to what has been universally understood in Scripture and Tradition. Scripture and Tradition precede the office of the pope in the sense that the Pope is not over the Deposit but is it’s guardian and servant. He cannot justly change a meaning that was held within the Deposit. If a meaning is within the Deposit of faith that has been universally held by Tradition and the past Magisterium it is not within his prerogative to contradict that meaning. Example: the statement from Paragraph 2266 of the 1995 Catechism “2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” The proposition of this statement means that the traditional understanding of the Church the public authority has the right to inflict the death penalty. This can be backed up from countless saints, popes, and councils. Here’s another statement from the Catechism of the Council of Trent: “Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thy shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives. In the Psalms we find a vindication of this right: “Morning by morning I will destroy all the wicked in the land, cutting off all evildoers from the city of the Lord” (Ps. 101:8). (Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1566, Part III, 5, n. 4)”. Again, based off the meanings of the statements we can conclude that the Church sees the death penalty as admissible. Now Let’s take another statement and see what it’s meaning is. From the revised section on the death penalty in the new edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church “Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” (Francis, Address, Oct. 11, 2017), and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.” The meaning of this statement is that the death penalty is inadmissible. We have a contradiction in our hands. The former statements affirmed that the death penalty was admissible and even the right and duty of the state to administer. The latter statement is contradicting those statements. The MEANINGS ARE CONTRARY TO EACH OTHER. It is a rule of logic that now either the former is right and the latter is wrong or they are both incorrect. We cannot claim that both meanings are incorrect since that would be unreasonable considering we are speaking of the Deposit of Faith. The former is right and the latter is wrong would mean that the meaning of the former statements are an expression of the true meaning of the Deposit held by popes, councils and saints for 2 thousand years and that the later is an error. It is a novel meaning of the Deposit of Faith and cannot be assented to. Now let’s take the last position. The former are in error and the latter is correct. This would imply firstly that a pope can in fact change the meaning of what has been held as the meaning of the Deposit. It also means that the past magisterium was also in error. This can hardly be reasonable. Therefore, the fallible magisterium of pope Francis has errored. Remember we are dealing with two contradictory statements. 2. The magisterium is divided into ordinary and extraordinary. Ordinary Magisterium is the bishops in Union with the pope throughout time and the world that transmit Revealed Truth. This is done in “ordinary” ways such as homilies, the Creed, past magisterial documents, catechisms, etc. It is further divided into infallible and fallible. A. The infallible ordinary magisterium is when the pope or the bishops in Union with the pope all agree and teach a doctrine that is considered either Divinely Revealed or a doctrine connected with Revelation. The fallible ordinary magisterium teaches truths that have not yet been proposed as divinely revealed or connected with the Deposit infallibly and are therefore fallible. They can be subject to error on account of the lack of certainty. B. The extraordinary magisterium is exercised in an ecumenical council or in exercise of the Pope when he speaks Ex Cathedra. Only when the pope or council declares that such a statement and meaning is to be defined as a matter of Faith or morals is it infallible. And this only occurs for statements within the documents or pronouncements. NOT EVERYTHING THE DOCUMENT OR COUNCIL SAYS IT TO BE DECLARED INFALLIBLE. Only those select statements. In regards to pope Francis we can see how many things he says are not part of his ordinary infallible or extraordinary infallible magisterium. So then it must be his ordinary fallible magisterium that makes these contradictory meanings. To make this clear is not a rebellion against the Holy Seat but a safeguarding of what has been held as a meaning passed on before us. It is filial correction to make the contradiction clear and corrected.
I mean this sincerely, there are contradictory things that I cannot find an answer for, and believe me I am trying. The pope dogmatically has the gift of infallibility regarding faith and morals. Pope Francis has declared definitively and publicly on at least 2 occasions that God wills multiple religions. Pope St. John Paul 2nd, outside of the Assissi events even, has advocated for religious pluralism, as has St. Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and Pope St. Paul VI. That is one current pope and 3 canonized Roman Catholic saints advocating in one form or another religious pluralism, Pope Francis being the most direct of all of them. We complain about the problem of Religious pluralism and indifferentism, yet the very Church that we are apart of and love so dearly has multiple saints and a sitting pope advocating for it. To me, either the Church has defected in its doctrines as propagated by 3 canonized saints and the pope (which would mean this is not Christ's Church because Christ is not a liar-the Church cannot defect in its doctrine/be destroyed), or these saints and pope are correct and the Church has not defected. Somebody help me out here. This is not meant as an attack, it is more just doctrinal confusion and frustration.
There are many places to find answers. Perhaps one needs to break out of one's echo chamber. Reason and Theology by Michael Lofton is a good place to start. God bless
To answer specifically to your concerns, from my knowledge the Magisterium has never formally espoused pluralism or indifferentism. Vatican 2 does not teach such heresy. However, imprudent decisions have been made by popes concerning practical approaches to inter religious dialogue among other activities. This is in accord with the providence of the indefectibility of the Church. When the right distinctions are made, we see how Christ in His mercy allows certain defects in character and understanding among the clergy, while still formally preserving the Church in the fullness of truth. Our biggest problem today is deviation from the official teachings of the magisterium, among both the liberals and the traditionals. My two cents! Appreciate the sincerity of your post.
Neither of those two things are correct. The issue is making proper distinctions. Saints are canonized for holiness and sanctity of life, showing heroic virtue. Not all canonized saints were perfect in everything, but still had holiness of life. Someone can be a subjective heretic rather than an objective one, which means that they would have submitted to the Church if corrected, or that their actions were not out of malice. In other words, even saints can be caught up in the confusion of the times, but are saints because they still become holy in the midst of that confusion. For example, there are saints who accidentally supported antipopes. Those are the distinctions to understand for the three saintly popes that you mentioned. Most canonized popes have made mistakes - even St Pius X. When it comes to official magisterium declarations, the Church cannot and has not made any that contradict the truth. Unfortunately, many in the hierarchy are putting out documents under the pretext of such, but it is a sham. Any document that contradicts past declared doctrine does not meet the requirements of infallibility. So if it contradicts the Catechism of Trent for instance, it is not infallible. Not contradicting past dogmas of faith is one of the requirements needed for infallibility to my understanding.
@@CatholicK5357 "The Church cannot and has not made any [statements] that contradict the truth." yes until Vatican II which means V2 is not from the Church because the Church can not defect nor give the faithful poisonous liturgy. Besides do you have the same faith as JP2? do you kiss a koran in the morning? Have you enshrined a pacamama in you home yet? Is the old covenant of Moses able to still save Jews post Christ?
Trads don’t seem to understand that we can grow in understanding of certain teachings over time just like certain movies and books seem to get better with age. Interpretations can evolve over time based on how it squares with reality. Time will tell
@@empirical_blade6926 but can’t we grow in our understanding of what something means? It’s kind of like when our parents say to us “don’t worry; you’ll understand when you’re older”
@@chrisobrien6254 As an Orthodox Christian, things like the Filioque or the Immaculate dogma make sense under a certain interpretation of doctrinal development, but then you have to ask yourself where do we draw the line on doctrinal development? Under the Vatican 2 council the Roman church has fallen under severe doctrinal ambiguity, even before this the modernists were using the same idea to introduce Modernist heresies and ideas into the church which Pope Pius XII said that there was no such thing in the church and doctrinal development was an heresy, he started to see how it can be used against the church. As a Christian it really frustrastes me how you can believe in something like that because I don't understand it, the doctrines of the church can simply be up for grabs.
Where do you find new testament priests in scriptures? Acts 8:22 proves apostle Peter didn't teach confession for mortal sins to some catholic priest. So catholicism is false, it's not Christianity at all. All Christians are their own priests 1 Pet 2:4-9.
Progressive Catholics want constant change in the church even if that change is unreasonable and wanders from the heart of Christ’s teaching.. Trads want absolutely No change in the church even if that change is reasonable and perhaps moves closer to the heart of Christs teachings. This is why I’m not in either camp anymore. Both are one end of a tiresome tone deaf extreme. There is no way that either side is completely correct, just like republicans and democrats. Both think that their position is logically defensible when The real truth is almost always in the logical unbiased center of right and left
Ave María 🙏😇♥️
Indeed, "Tradidi vobis quod et accepi" was the motto of Archbishop Lefebvre. And yes, Vatican II, and that which followed, directly contradict, in some places, that which was explicitly taught previously.
Vatican II cannot "directly" contradict, as don't forget that Archbishop Lefebvre and other orthodox minded bishops signed off on those Vatican II documents, and he did not have to.
@@CatholicK5357 It is commonly thought that V II documents "cannot" contradict previous teachings, but they do. It is merely a matter of reading the previous documents to realize this. Archbishop Lefebvre signed the documents in good faith, but I think he came to regret his signatures.
@@dorianlelong I have to make a distinction here. The main word that I took issue with was "directly". I do think it possible for the documents to indirectly contradict previous teaching by using ambiguity. But I stand by saying that it is impossible for it to "directly" do so. This is because none of the faithful bishops, including Archbishop Lefebvre would have signed anything that directly contradicted the teachings of the Church, because one cannot support a direct contradiction in "good faith". So to sign in good faith would have to mean that there was no direct contradiction.
In a "snap" this Father teached me firmly what The Magisterium is.
What is this priest's name?
Amen.
I just wish it could give it ten like votes
The criticism of the person holding the office and the criticism of the office are not the same. The existence of the papacy is mot contingent on the person of Jorge Bergoglio’s existence. The position you are taking that the pope is free from error in every manner he speaks is called the error of ultramontansim. Let me explain.
1. The Deposit of Faith precedes the Apostolic Office. This Deposit is the sum of Truths in the form of propositions. Propositions are the meanings of statements. Our Faith is contained in the Tradition and Scripture in the forms of statements with immutable meanings. This means that the meanings of dogmas cannot change. They can be made more clear in meaning but a statement cannot contradict a past statement that has been held as infallibly certain. When a statement is made that clarifies or explains an already held infallible meaning then that is true development of doctrine but when a statement is made that contradicts an already held meaning then that is either heresy or error. Now it is possible that popes have made statements that contain meanings that are contradictory to what has been universally understood in Scripture and Tradition. Scripture and Tradition precede the office of the pope in the sense that the Pope is not over the Deposit but is it’s guardian and servant. He cannot justly change a meaning that was held within the Deposit. If a meaning is within the Deposit of faith that has been universally held by Tradition and the past Magisterium it is not within his prerogative to contradict that meaning. Example: the statement from Paragraph 2266 of the 1995 Catechism “2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” The proposition of this statement means that the traditional understanding of the Church the public authority has the right to inflict the death penalty. This can be backed up from countless saints, popes, and councils. Here’s another statement from the Catechism of the Council of Trent: “Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thy shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives. In the Psalms we find a vindication of this right: “Morning by morning I will destroy all the wicked in the land, cutting off all evildoers from the city of the Lord” (Ps. 101:8). (Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1566, Part III, 5, n. 4)”. Again, based off the meanings of the statements we can conclude that the Church sees the death penalty as admissible. Now Let’s take another statement and see what it’s meaning is. From the revised section on the death penalty in the new edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church “Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” (Francis, Address, Oct. 11, 2017), and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.” The meaning of this statement is that the death penalty is inadmissible. We have a contradiction in our hands. The former statements affirmed that the death penalty was admissible and even the right and duty of the state to administer. The latter statement is contradicting those statements. The MEANINGS ARE CONTRARY TO EACH OTHER. It is a rule of logic that now either the former is right and the latter is wrong or they are both incorrect. We cannot claim that both meanings are incorrect since that would be unreasonable considering we are speaking of the Deposit of Faith. The former is right and the latter is wrong would mean that the meaning of the former statements are an expression of the true meaning of the Deposit held by popes, councils and saints for 2 thousand years and that the later is an error. It is a novel meaning of the Deposit of Faith and cannot be assented to. Now let’s take the last position. The former are in error and the latter is correct. This would imply firstly that a pope can in fact change the meaning of what has been held as the meaning of the Deposit. It also means that the past magisterium was also in error. This can hardly be reasonable. Therefore, the fallible magisterium of pope Francis has errored. Remember we are dealing with two contradictory statements.
2. The magisterium is divided into ordinary and extraordinary.
Ordinary Magisterium is the bishops in Union with the pope throughout time and the world that transmit Revealed Truth. This is done in “ordinary” ways such as homilies, the Creed, past magisterial documents, catechisms, etc. It is further divided into infallible and fallible.
A. The infallible ordinary magisterium is when the pope or the bishops in Union with the pope all agree and teach a doctrine that is considered either Divinely Revealed or a doctrine connected with Revelation. The fallible ordinary magisterium teaches truths that have not yet been proposed as divinely revealed or connected with the Deposit infallibly and are therefore fallible. They can be subject to error on account of the lack of certainty.
B. The extraordinary magisterium is exercised in an ecumenical council or in exercise of the Pope when he speaks Ex Cathedra. Only when the pope or council declares that such a statement and meaning is to be defined as a matter of Faith or morals is it infallible. And this only occurs for statements within the documents or pronouncements. NOT EVERYTHING THE DOCUMENT OR COUNCIL SAYS IT TO BE DECLARED INFALLIBLE. Only those select statements.
In regards to pope Francis we can see how many things he says are not part of his ordinary infallible or extraordinary infallible magisterium. So then it must be his ordinary fallible magisterium that makes these contradictory meanings. To make this clear is not a rebellion against the Holy Seat but a safeguarding of what has been held as a meaning passed on before us. It is filial correction to make the contradiction clear and corrected.
I mean this sincerely, there are contradictory things that I cannot find an answer for, and believe me I am trying.
The pope dogmatically has the gift of infallibility regarding faith and morals. Pope Francis has declared definitively and publicly on at least 2 occasions that God wills multiple religions. Pope St. John Paul 2nd, outside of the Assissi events even, has advocated for religious pluralism, as has St. Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and Pope St. Paul VI. That is one current pope and 3 canonized Roman Catholic saints advocating in one form or another religious pluralism, Pope Francis being the most direct of all of them.
We complain about the problem of Religious pluralism and indifferentism, yet the very Church that we are apart of and love so dearly has multiple saints and a sitting pope advocating for it. To me, either the Church has defected in its doctrines as propagated by 3 canonized saints and the pope (which would mean this is not Christ's Church because Christ is not a liar-the Church cannot defect in its doctrine/be destroyed), or these saints and pope are correct and the Church has not defected. Somebody help me out here. This is not meant as an attack, it is more just doctrinal confusion and frustration.
There are many places to find answers. Perhaps one needs to break out of one's echo chamber. Reason and Theology by Michael Lofton is a good place to start. God bless
To answer specifically to your concerns, from my knowledge the Magisterium has never formally espoused pluralism or indifferentism. Vatican 2 does not teach such heresy. However, imprudent decisions have been made by popes concerning practical approaches to inter religious dialogue among other activities. This is in accord with the providence of the indefectibility of the Church. When the right distinctions are made, we see how Christ in His mercy allows certain defects in character and understanding among the clergy, while still formally preserving the Church in the fullness of truth. Our biggest problem today is deviation from the official teachings of the magisterium, among both the liberals and the traditionals. My two cents! Appreciate the sincerity of your post.
Outside the Church there is no salvation. The NO is not valid. These are anti popes who promote heresy. We are in the catacombs again.
Neither of those two things are correct. The issue is making proper distinctions.
Saints are canonized for holiness and sanctity of life, showing heroic virtue. Not all canonized saints were perfect in everything, but still had holiness of life. Someone can be a subjective heretic rather than an objective one, which means that they would have submitted to the Church if corrected, or that their actions were not out of malice. In other words, even saints can be caught up in the confusion of the times, but are saints because they still become holy in the midst of that confusion. For example, there are saints who accidentally supported antipopes. Those are the distinctions to understand for the three saintly popes that you mentioned. Most canonized popes have made mistakes - even St Pius X.
When it comes to official magisterium declarations, the Church cannot and has not made any that contradict the truth. Unfortunately, many in the hierarchy are putting out documents under the pretext of such, but it is a sham. Any document that contradicts past declared doctrine does not meet the requirements of infallibility. So if it contradicts the Catechism of Trent for instance, it is not infallible. Not contradicting past dogmas of faith is one of the requirements needed for infallibility to my understanding.
@@CatholicK5357 "The Church cannot and has not made any [statements] that contradict the truth." yes until Vatican II which means V2 is not from the Church because the Church can not defect nor give the faithful poisonous liturgy.
Besides do you have the same faith as JP2? do you kiss a koran in the morning?
Have you enshrined a pacamama in you home yet?
Is the old covenant of Moses able to still save Jews post Christ?
Trads don’t seem to understand that we can grow in understanding of certain teachings over time just like certain movies and books seem to get better with age. Interpretations can evolve over time based on how it squares with reality. Time will tell
The truths of the church are not "like books or good movies" it is the eternal truth, it is either the truth or not
@@empirical_blade6926 but can’t we grow in our understanding of what something means? It’s kind of like when our parents say to us “don’t worry; you’ll understand when you’re older”
@@chrisobrien6254 As an Orthodox Christian, things like the Filioque or the Immaculate dogma make sense under a certain interpretation of doctrinal development, but then you have to ask yourself where do we draw the line on doctrinal development?
Under the Vatican 2 council the Roman church has fallen under severe doctrinal ambiguity, even before this the modernists were using the same idea to introduce Modernist heresies and ideas into the church which Pope Pius XII said that there was no such thing in the church and doctrinal development was an heresy, he started to see how it can be used against the church.
As a Christian it really frustrastes me how you can believe in something like that because I don't understand it, the doctrines of the church can simply be up for grabs.
Where do you find new testament priests in scriptures?
Acts 8:22 proves apostle Peter didn't teach confession for mortal sins to some catholic priest.
So catholicism is false, it's not Christianity at all.
All Christians are their own priests
1 Pet 2:4-9.
Progressive Catholics want constant change in the church even if that change is unreasonable and wanders from the heart of Christ’s teaching.. Trads want absolutely No change in the church even if that change is reasonable and perhaps moves closer to the heart of Christs teachings. This is why I’m not in either camp anymore. Both are one end of a tiresome tone deaf extreme. There is no way that either side is completely correct, just like republicans and democrats. Both think that their position is logically defensible when The real truth is almost always in the logical unbiased center of right and left