jump to navigation

Cardinal Daneels – Vatican II broke with the past October 25, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, Tradition.
comments closed

This is not quite the same as stating that Vatican II broke with the prior Magisterium, but it is perilously close:

The Church broke away from its negative and “world-rejecting” past at the Second Vatican Council, a senior cardinal has said. [Incredibly how all those Saints – Doctors even! – got it wrong.  St. Alphonsus Ligouri, St. Teresa of Jesus, St. Therese of Lisieux, St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, St. Benedict……I could go on for a very long time.  All embraced the notion that one should flee the world and its false promises and allures]

In a speech given last week at Clifton Cathedral in Bristol and St George’s Cathedral in Southwark, south London, Cardinal Godfried Danneels said that Vatican II represented a “discontinuity with past thinking” comparable to that at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, when the Nicaean Creed was formulated.  [Good Lord, is he embracing Arianism?  The Council of Nicaea simply responded to a heresy, that Christ was only a man. ]

His remarks however appear to conflict with Pope Benedict XVI’s analysis that the Council should be understood as reform within continuity. The Pope has also criticised the “hermenuetic of discontinuity” as an analysis of Vatican II.

The Belgian cardinal was speaking as part of lecture series in both dioceses to mark the start of the Year of Faith. Danneels, who was present as an expert at the Second Vatican Council in 1962, told audiences that the council had demonstrated that the Church’s traditions and practices “need not necessarily remain that [unchangeable] way for eternity”.

Uff da, I could go on for a very long time on this.  It cuts to the heart of the problem surrounding the last Council.  Suffice it to say, Cardinal Daneels, with all due respect, can at best be only slightly right.  Certain non-dogmatic traditions and practices can certainly be reformed, but what has occurred since Vatican II is a radical rejection of Dogma.  I have been reading a great deal about the Council, and Daneels was in that group that wanted to have the Church proclaim only one source of Divine Revelation – Sacred Scripture – in order to appease protestants. I cannot tell you, and hope I don’t have to, how that would have disfigured and, really, just about obliterated the Faith.  It is also laughable, to think that those early Church Fathers, then, before there was Sacred Scripture in a codified form, were all running around without any guide at all.  In point of fact, it was Tradition that came first, Scripture followed later, as St. Paul notes himself to the Thessalonians and others.

As the article mentions, this seems quite contrary to what Pope Benedict, and, to a lesser extent, Popes JP II and Paul VI, have made plain.

San Fran aux. bishop – conscience trumps all, even in error – UPDATED, yet again! October 25, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, contraception, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, secularism, Society.
comments closed

This is amazing, and sad.  An auxiliary bishop claims that the “primacy of conscience” is supreme, even if one arrives at a conscience that rejects Church Doctrine.   Archbishop Cordileone needs to have a talk with this auxiliary bishop immediately (I add emphasis and comments):

How should Catholics vote?

With the presidential election looming closer with each passing day, the question grows increasingly urgent. In an effort to answer it, a group of 60 or so Catholics from parishes throughout the Archdiocese of San Francisco – led by Auxiliary Bishop Robert W. McElroy – gathered Oct. 13 at St. Dunstan Church in Millbrae for a parish forum called “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.”…….

……..While the church may take a stand on an issue, he said, it is not affiliated with any particular party and it does not endorse candidates. Because Catholic issues split both parties, it is of the utmost importance for Catholics to listen to and obey their consciences.

It is God speaking to us at the core of our being,” he said. “It is the sacred space within the heart that is in conversation with God.”  [This is very dangerous.  One cannot simply assume that God is the voice one may hear in their inner being. All kinds of influences, including our own fallen natures, our selfish preferences, even diabolical temptation, could be “speaking to us at the core of our being.” If that voice in your inner being tells you to do something contrary to the Faith, run from it]

It is therefore the task of every Christian, he said, to undertake the lifelong task of forming his or her conscience. The church esteems conscience so highly, that a person with an informed conscience is called upon to obey it – even if it conflicts with church teaching.

WRONG. FAIL.  That is true, to a point, but I would never make this statement without numerous and extensive caveats, being very careful to remind those involved that taking some action that is counter to what the Church believes – is as sinful or more sinful than violating one’s conscience.  The Holy Father has pointed out recently that if you “form” your conscience to arrive at a conclusion hostile to what the Church believes, you are doing it wrong.  In fact, you very well may have formed your conscience according to your own preferences.  This is both amazing, and sad, that a bishop, no less, would be making this fundamental error not make clear the dangers inherent in following one’s conscience contrary to the Faith.  Unfortunately, this is one of the most widespread, corrosive, and debilitating errors which has emerged from the ‘spirit of Vatican II,’ that Dignitatis Humanae claims that even a conscience in error is supreme, and can do as it wills.  it is possible to assert conscience even above the moral law established by God, and somehow be “in union” with the Faith.  The bishop does not quite go there, but there is also no warning to the flock about following this widespread error. This is always  very frequently used by the left as a cover to support morally deranged candidates who endorse things like abortion, fake gay marriage, etc.   It is interesting that in another part of the article, this Bishop McElroy states that “abortion is a most important issue, but not the only one,” strongly implying an equivalency between prudential issues like whether a certain war is just, how much to spend on certain wealth-transfer schemes, etc.  “Primacy of conscience” and “seamless garment” invariably often seem to go hand in hand.

One can “form” one’s conscience to arrive at all kinds of erroneous, preposterous, even murderous convictions.  Do you think Bishop McElroy would support a libertarian free-market politician’s decision to completely de-fund all poverty programs in this country?  Do you think that would be an acceptable formation of conscience to him?  Or would we then learn that there are indeed Dogmas that must be adhered to, like support for the poor?  Is it just certain Dogmas, maybe, which private judgment can trump?

How is this any different protestantism? As a former protestant, it appears no different to me, at all.

UPDATE: Dr. Jay Boyd left an important comment.   Dr. Boyd, whom I respect a lot, repeats the current view in the Church that it is sinful to, say, vote in favor of something your conscience is actually against.  So that, even if a person is really in favor of gay marriage, that person voting against it is committing a sin, even if they vote against it based on the Church’s belief.  That is certainly the predominant view in the Church today, but it leaves out some important factors.  One, historically, I’m not sure this was always the belief of the Church.  This is one of those areas from Vatican II that is most hotly debated by those who adhere to more traditional beliefs.  Secondly, the bishop failed to mention that it is a person’s duty to align their belief with the belief of the Church, to undergo that personal conversion and mortification to adhere to what the Church believes even at the cost of having to let go of some pride, or whatever causes us to reject the Church’s position.  This is what Pope Benedict XVI said very recently, I can’t find the link right now, but he stated that it is a Catholic’s duty to know what the Church believes and to align their thinking likewise. I know that I have changed some of my thinking – a great deal of it! – from the past, in order to accept and proclaim what the Church knows to be true.  Bishop McElroy gave a much more fuzzy definition, and there are big theological and even logical problems with the modern-day “primacy of conscience” belief.  I guess the question is, which is the bigger sin – to violate one’s conscience and take action in support of the Faith, or commit a serious sin by taking an action counter to the Faith?  My money would be on the latter.

Once again, there are so  many pratfalls in this process of separating oneself from the Faith by rejecting some Doctrine, that what someone may claim to be their “conscience” could be mere preference, bad formation, selfishness, etc.  Cases where one really holds a very dear belief that is thoroughly thought out, devoid of self-motives and entirely dispassionate, and yet counter to the Faith, are, I would suspect, very rare.  Especially in this day and age.

UPDATE II: Alright, Dr. Boyd has a point. I changed a great deal above. Too hot-headed, I am.  But I will say this, one cannot claim that conscience is superior to the moral law established by God.  Some, with respect to “primacy of conscience,” do just that.  That was my error above, I was confusing this assertion of conscience over the moral law with forming one’s conscience contrary to the Faith.  Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

UPDATE III: This is a difficult issue.  I had a terrible headache yesterday, and definitely wasn’t my best.  I appreciate the comments supporting my original stance, that was the impression I got from the Holy Father’s recent comments, too.  But does Dr. Boyd have a point that if one is invincibly ignorant, and comes to arrive at some “conscience-bound” position that is contrary to what the Church believes, mustn’t they act according to that belief, even if wrong? Of course, Catholics have no excuse to be invincibly ignorant, that normally applies to those outside the Faith.  The more I think about it, the more I think my original take was right, and I adamantly maintain that blithely throwing out statements that one can go against Church Doctrine “in conscience” without making very plain the likely disastrous consequences of doing so, is being morally derelict in their duty.

What I hoped to find was someone, or a link/source that would point to the prior Magisterium, because, as I said, I know many traditional-minded Catholics have a huge problem with the seeming change vis a vis conscience which has occurred in the Church since Vatican II, especially with regard to Dignitatis Humanae.  Anyway, got to go, keep talking, I’m definitely paying attention and interested to learn.

Elite Democrat donor hates her some Catholics October 25, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, sadness, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

That persecution thing we’ve been talking about?  Uhhh…….  (sorry, much profanity/vulgarity at the link, I clean it up below)

Democrats on the bottom of the ticket in Washington state all the way to the very top are caught in a pickle. Stand against religious bigotry or give back some $60,000 in state campaign cash contributed by world-famous spiritual channeler JZ Knight [so, this is a new age zealout. Some accuse her of leading a dangerous cult] after videos showing Knight preaching hatred of Catholics became public.

In a story that may become a national news story as soon as tomorrow morning, Knight is seen and heard on video to let loose a profanity-strewn rant against Catholics and has been a frequent and generous contributor to Democrats here in Washington and at the national level. Knight’s contributions to Democrat at all levels total more than $120,000 for the current election cycle.

As of Tuesday, Democrats are deciding to take Knight’s money and run, an equivocation that could produce significant controversy among swing voters just as many are marking their ballots to decide a very close election.

The video evidence of Knight’s tirades are difficult to watch.

“F— you, you Catholics!” Knight bellows over cheers from her audience.

“We will come on you in a terror,” Knight growls in another cut. “We will bring… St. Peter’s temple down and we will swallow it in the sea.” (“St. Peter’s temple” is a reference to the Catholic church itself.)   [wow, I didn’t know we had temples? This woman doesn’t sound very well educated]

I normally wouldn’t do this, but I think this woman’s insanity needs to be heard. I warn you, what follows is, I am quite certain, a drunken rant by an extremely twisted, hate-filled person (extreme profanity alert):

Scratch that.  If you want to see the videos, you can see them here.  I put the video and a picture of this Knight creature on my blog but then got a very bad, very dark feeling.  She’s associated with something terrible and dark.  I want nothing to do with it or her.  She has left a trail of destruction all through her life.  It is not in the least surprising a creature like this would hate the Church so.

If you do watch the video, you might agree with me that she appears drunk, and has many markers of an alkie.

I pray for her conversion.  It is so sad there are such people in the world – she’s made millions milking people of their life’s savings, either just making up stuff or fronting for a demon.

St. Michael, be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.

 

On the radio tonight, 9pm CDT! October 25, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, awesomeness, fun, General Catholic.
comments closed

I will be on Fidelis Radio tonight with my Salve Regina radio show.  You can listen live here, or any time after the fact.

On tonight’s show I’m going to discuss this Latin Mass situation at St. Mark some more.  A bit more information has come to light that I haven’t shared publicly. In addition, I’ll talk about the after-effects of the Dolan/Obama dinner, yet another CCHD funding scandal, and some other items related to the Church and the election.

Please be sure to tune in!

And listen to all the other great shows on Fidelis Radio!