www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Why Only Post-Vatican II Documents?

Thanks for that excellent link! +Father Hardon+ certainly had a gift for clearing things up. Wish he were still around - it'd be fun to have him on the Forum!

There is no doubt in my mind that these rad-Trads believe, as you say, that the last few popes are teaching something different but the fact is they are not.

Many of the rad-Trads deny the very Church and what it teaches when they question the validity of the Mass, some go as far as saying that the Church is teaching error with the new Mass. They also seem to think that a past pope can bind all who follow him, including the popes that follow. That is also an error.

You seem to be pushing the idea here, forgive me if I am mistaken, that they seem to be correct in their actions.

Just to add my 2 cents to this thread, there
seem to be at least 4 groups here:

1) Ultra-traditionalists who reject Vatican II
completely and all post-conciliar teachings and
documents.

2) Ultra-modernists who believe that the Church
BEGAN with Vatican II and reject all pre-conciliar
teachings and documents.

3) Those who see no contradiction between pre-
and post-conciliar teachings and documents.

4) Those who see contradictions between SOME
documents and teachings of Vatican II and pre-
conciliar teachings of the Church.

Naturally, each group is going to quote from
whatever set of documents seem to agree with
their point of view.........................


antonius
(disclaimer-speaking only for myself)

JGC,

Unfortunately, your link didn't go through for me. Do you mind linking it again?

Thanks for the link. Right now I'd really like to discuss what the Church is (i.e., the Sui Iuris Catholic Churches Communion or the EO Churches) - not who can be saved.

David,

Even though it's beside the point, I can't say that I really empathize with the Sedevacantists at all. I really don't have much of a problem with the SSPX, personally; or at the very least I might disagree but empathize. I don't believe the Novus Ordo is invalid, and neither does the SSPX as a matter of fact.

It still seems no one will provide me with any authoritative Catholic sources which claim that our Communion of Sui Iuris Churches is not the True Church of Christ.

Logos Teen

Dear Teen,

Could you provide me with sources from various other Churches where they affirm that they are themselves not the "true Church of Christ?"

Is there such a Christian Church?

Alex

Dear Alex,

It seems some would have us believe that the Catholic Church teaches (or implies) this about Herself!

Logos Teen

I don't want to get into this here all that much, I have done so else where but the SSPX is well known for saying one thing and then saying another (either with words or actions)

They say they are in communion with Rome, yet they refuse the listen or follow.

They say at one point that the Mass is not invalid yet at another place on their website they say it teaches error and it is a danger to one's immortal soul to go to it.

I do not have any sympathy nor can I empathize with anyone who raises themselves above the Church in authority.

Who says we are not? The Catholic Church is the True Church of Christ.

DavidB,

I do agree with you that oftentimes the SSPX says one thing and yet does another.

Who? I'll let you know the next time I see a post by a Catholic on this Forum that says or implies exactly this.

Logos Teen

The same could be said of MANY
of the American RC bishops who
essentially "thumb their noses"
at each Vatican directive as soon
as it is promulgated.............


antonius
(speaking only for myself)

Dear Friends,

I obey Rome in all things save those matters that are dictated by political expediency via its "ostpolitik" and especially with respect to the UGCC.

My philosophy was - when the EC Church was being persecuted by the Soviets, the EC's were there and Rome wasn't.

Alex

Not to bring up a dead topic, but today at liturgy I did hear someone say:

"We have seen the true light, we have received the Heavenly Spirit. We have found the true faith , worshiping the undivided Trinity who has saved us".

As far as I'm concerned, that suffices for what you're looking for, Teen. Protestantism, for instance, does not share exactly the same faith with us, to say nothing about Buddhism and Islam. That little prayer should leave no one confused that any other faith is the true faith.

This is a little off topic, but I had to say it:

I think some of us tend to use - and I am one who does it frequently - pre- and post-Vatican II as a HISTORICAL reference to a point on the timeline when certain Liturgical reforms became more noticable to regular Catholics. It really isn't a reference to the Council or its documents and as such it is probably quite incorrect. At least, I realize that certainly isn't the best way to describe it. So, dear friends, mea culpa...