The Worship Of Vatican II
Unbe-freakin'-lievable
The good folks over at CathCon have a couple of posts that are as timely as they are illuminating
Pope making a sect out of the Catholic Church according to Salzburg Archbishop
The Salzburg Archbishop Alois Kothgasser warns the Catholic Church against an illness which takes her towards being a sect and makes an unusually strong criticism of the Vatican.
In a written statement to the media on Tuesday Kothgasser urges 'confidence in the local church ". Otherwise, confidence in the "central authority" of the church would also dwindle. Also Kothgasser clearly stated that the SSPX whose excommunication Pope Benedict XVI has lifted does, "not stand on the same ground as the Roman Catholic Church." (Based on what, other than this guys overt Protestantism?)
Kothgasser asks the church a "fundamental question": "Should the Catholic Church reduce herself to a cult, which only a few, but law-abiding members practice, or should the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ leave room for diversity, be open and influence society from the inside? "He argues for the latter" (I seem to recall something written about a "remnant Church".) It is necessary for the church and necessary for society that the church is turned towards the people and preserves their values. (So much for that Jesus dude... it's "The People", stupid) If confidence in the local church is missing, also the confidence in the central authority of the Universal Church begins to wane." (Luther couldn't have said it better.)
On the repeal by Pope Benedict of the excommunication of SSPX Kothgasser stresses that he understood the concern of the Pope to restore the unity of the church. A reunion with the SSPX could not be expected if the conditions were not clearly formulated. "Those who reject Vatican II, do not stand on the same ground as the Roman Catholic Church," said Kothgasser, and: "Actually, they have excluded themselves (excommunicated) from the Catholic Church." (Let me say this, yet again... very, very little of Vatican II is dogma. And the very small slice that is, simply re-enforces 2,000 years of Catholic Teaching. NO NEW DOGMA (binding upon pain of sin) was ever pronounced at Vatican II.
Should the SSPX “stubbornly continue” in their rejection of the Second Vatican Council, this would be from the perspective Kothgassers not a schism, but "heresy". (Ahhh... and exactly what binding upon pain of sin portions of V2 did the SSPX reject? Zero. But then again, Roman Protestants like Kothgasser worship "The Spirit" of Vatican II. And I'll bet he was at Berlin not all that long ago chanting "O-BA-MA!! O-BA-MA!!") Protestants call on Pope to unreservedly accept Vatican II
Unbe-freakin'-lievable
The good folks over at CathCon have a couple of posts that are as timely as they are illuminating
The Salzburg Archbishop Alois Kothgasser warns the Catholic Church against an illness which takes her towards being a sect and makes an unusually strong criticism of the Vatican.
In a written statement to the media on Tuesday Kothgasser urges 'confidence in the local church ". Otherwise, confidence in the "central authority" of the church would also dwindle. Also Kothgasser clearly stated that the SSPX whose excommunication Pope Benedict XVI has lifted does, "not stand on the same ground as the Roman Catholic Church." (Based on what, other than this guys overt Protestantism?)
Kothgasser asks the church a "fundamental question": "Should the Catholic Church reduce herself to a cult, which only a few, but law-abiding members practice, or should the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ leave room for diversity, be open and influence society from the inside? "He argues for the latter" (I seem to recall something written about a "remnant Church".)
On the repeal by Pope Benedict of the excommunication of SSPX Kothgasser stresses that he understood the concern of the Pope to restore the unity of the church. A reunion with the SSPX could not be expected if the conditions were not clearly formulated. "Those who reject Vatican II, do not stand on the same ground as the Roman Catholic Church," said Kothgasser, and: "Actually, they have excluded themselves (excommunicated) from the Catholic Church." (Let me say this, yet again... very, very little of Vatican II is dogma. And the very small slice that is, simply re-enforces 2,000 years of Catholic Teaching. NO NEW DOGMA (binding upon pain of sin) was ever pronounced at Vatican II.
Should the SSPX “stubbornly continue” in their rejection of the Second Vatican Council, this would be from the perspective Kothgassers not a schism, but "heresy". (Ahhh... and exactly what binding upon pain of sin portions of V2 did the SSPX reject? Zero. But then again, Roman Protestants like Kothgasser worship "The Spirit" of Vatican II. And I'll bet he was at Berlin not all that long ago chanting "O-BA-MA!! O-BA-MA!!")
posted by Kevin Whiteman at
7:25 AM
5 Comments:
It would be interesting if someone would look at the good people of Salzburg and see how things are going there. For example: how's Mass attendance, baptisms , weddings, etc. now compared to say 40 years ago. My suspicious is that Church life isn't all that great for the good Archbishop to be poking a rod in someone else's eye.
But which kind of Protestant? There are evangelical Christians/Protestants that are at least faithful to 90% of the teachings of the Catholic Church (OK the remaining 10% can be a "biggie" at times). I think that Archbishop Alois Kothgasser is a Modernist, not a Protestant. And those Protestants that are in his camp or who favor his point of view are Modernists, not Christians at all.
If his leaving would make us a cult, I am signing up now. In other words, to have a Catholic Church in his mind, you have to have no truth, no teaching, but some sort of a church of anything goes as long as you come in faith. Benedict needs to follow Christ and let these folks walk away (if the only would) when they say your teaching is to hard.
Newsflash to Protestants & Bishop Kothgasser:
The Pope D=does unreservedly accept Vatican II, the real 1. Not the false "Spirit of Vatican II" (SV II) version that is straight out of hell & has nothing to do with the real Vatican II.
Bishop Kothgasser better realize that it is theose SV II wackos that rejected the real Vatican II.
I'd also love to ask the Bishop "where on the road to hell would he like his skull placed?" The Church he wants is not the Church Jesus started, it is the 1 Satan would like.
If we are to be a faithful remnant so be it. I'd rather be a part of that remnat & end up in Heavan, than in the unfaithful majority he wants & spend eternity in hell.
Jesus never counted success by numbers, why should His Church?
There are so many things wrong with what the Bishop said. 1 in particular stood out. He says that the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ should: "be open and influence society from the inside?" Then he goes on to say: "necessary for society that the church is turned towards the people and preserves their values." How can you influence which implies change if you are supposed to preserve society's values?
I know this entry is old by now, but I stumbled across it and just had to respond to a tiny part of it. You said, "Ahhh... and exactly what binding upon pain of sin portions of V2 did the SSPX reject? Zero."
Vatican II didn't teach anything ex cathedra, true, but that's because it chose to teach via the ordinary universal magisterium, which isn't as solemn or definitive but no less infallible. Here are some of Vatican II's teachings, which, although aren't dogma, are still definitively settled:
1. The subdiaconate isn't a sacrament but only a sacramental.
2. Consecration to the episcopate isn't a new sacrament but rather the fullness of the sacrament of holy orders.
3. It cleared up the fact that the Council of Trent didn't declare that Scripture and Tradition were 2 separate sources but rather 2 parts of the same source.
4. The details of religious liberty in relation to the state were defined solemnly and definitively.
5. The Blessed Virgin Mary is Mother of the Church and is properly understood as a member of the Church.
6. Lumen Gentium Chapter 25 provides the watershed understanding of the doctrine of infallibility and completes the work that Vatican I wasn't able to deal with in 1870 and which Pius XII dealt with partially in Humani Generis. There is no more comprehensive explication and defense of the Magisterium in any other magisterial document.
7. The ecumenical movement — understood as the desire and work to bring about Christian unity under the headship of the Vicar of Christ and WITHOUT sacrificing doctrine (unlike abuses of ecumenism, which, sadly, have been way too common over the years ... abuses of ecumenism involves watering down teachings so as not to offend others) — is initiated and fostered by the Holy Spirit. As such, it is our duty as Catholic Christians, to help bring about this unity of Christian persons, this unity of Christendom. This duty and dedication to bringing about unity is part of the Christian life and can manifest itself through prayer and/or action.
Just because Vatican II was primarily pastoral doesn't mean a Catholic may disregard it. Pope Paul VI reprimanded Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre about dismissing Vatican II for being "pastoral": "You cannot invoke the distinction between dogmatic and pastoral in order to accept certain texts of the Council and to refute others. Certainly, all that was said in the Council does not demand an assent of the same nature; only that which is affirmed as an object of faith or truth attached to the faith, by definitive acts, require an assent of faith. But the rest is also a part of the solemn magisterium of the Church to which all faithful must make a confident reception and a sincere application" (Nov. 10, 1976).
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home