You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
0
bluewhiteandred on scored.co
21 days ago0 points(+0/-0)
> Reconciling Nostra Aetate with Catholic Tradition
I think here's a clear refutation of "textualism":
The issue that throws everyone off is that of a "category error" maybe, where the Vatican 2 texts are in the category of being 1) objectively ambiguous. They are not 2) clearly Catholic, or 3) clearly non-Catholic.
As I gather with textualism, you are acknowledging Vatican 2 is #1 objectively ambiguous, but then are trying to argue that #2 actually via "textualism" a given ambiguous statement is #2 clearly Catholic.
However, since the text is "objectively ambiguous", it can also be interpreted to have a #3 clearly non-Catholic meaning. Ergo, it must be rejected as "doubtful" (some sedevacantists have argued it to be "heretical") because it is not a #2 clear Catholic teaching.
Consider the validity of sacraments. They are like #2, clearly valid, or #3 clearly invalid, but there is also the possibility of doubts occurring about the validity of the sacrament, and so they are considered to be like #1, doubtfully invalid.
Hence I am arguing Vatican 2 has #1 doubtful validity, and thus to resolve to a state of #2 Catholic certainty, Vatican 2's ambiguous statements must be restated as #2 clear Catholic teachings, and the contrary possible #3 opposed interpretations must be openly rejected. This would be like a sacrament being given "conditionally" to remove doubts (#1) to move to a state of greater certainty about the validity of the sacrament (#2).
Therefore I believe the practical program to resolve the doubt could be considering Vatican 2 as doubtful, of a Vatican 2 amended document being issued that affirms all exclusive #2 Catholic interpretations of doubtful passages are affirmed, all #3 heretical interpretations are openly rejected, of the Vatican 2 papal claimants who taught doubtfully as being considered "doubtful popes, and therefore no popes" (Catholic principle regarding the papacy), for a new election of a pope to take place based on these clearly agreed upon norms, and then of the situation of the clergy being straightened out.
(For "hardline" sedevacantists, they have no licit clergy and have considered the clergy claimants connected to the Vatican 2 church to be [edit: illicit], leaving sedevacantists without clear clergy - I believe once enough people become sedevacantists, we could probably have a discussion and sort this issue out).
A major objection to "hardline" sedevacantism is emotional, i.e. there are millions of souls of non-sedevacantists endangered if sedevacantism is true, ergo there are attempts to argue against sedevacantism. I propose a "non-hardline" sedevacantist alternative, whereby - where I think textualism and things like "sedeprivationism" may be getting at, in looking for a "third alternative" - that we may be in a situation like the Western Schism, which was not a formal or even material schism for most Catholics who may have followed antipopes innocently, but they were considered to be "fully Catholic" even while "materially" following antipopes.
I propose we may be in a different but similar situation, whereby people who have innocently followed antipopes and false teaching of Vatican 2 "in good faith" may be judged as blameless before God. But, I propose otherwise the practical regimen of like of treating a doubtful sacrament with conditional reception of the sacrament to remove doubts (i.e. such who identify as Catholic should become aware of the Vatican 2 movement not being Catholic, should reject it, and we need to move to a Vatican that has fully rejected the ambiguity of Vatican 2 and such inspired reforms in that direction).
So, if you have any ideas to further this conversation, let me know.
I think here's a clear refutation of "textualism":
The issue that throws everyone off is that of a "category error" maybe, where the Vatican 2 texts are in the category of being 1) objectively ambiguous. They are not 2) clearly Catholic, or 3) clearly non-Catholic.
As I gather with textualism, you are acknowledging Vatican 2 is #1 objectively ambiguous, but then are trying to argue that #2 actually via "textualism" a given ambiguous statement is #2 clearly Catholic.
However, since the text is "objectively ambiguous", it can also be interpreted to have a #3 clearly non-Catholic meaning. Ergo, it must be rejected as "doubtful" (some sedevacantists have argued it to be "heretical") because it is not a #2 clear Catholic teaching.
Consider the validity of sacraments. They are like #2, clearly valid, or #3 clearly invalid, but there is also the possibility of doubts occurring about the validity of the sacrament, and so they are considered to be like #1, doubtfully invalid.
Hence I am arguing Vatican 2 has #1 doubtful validity, and thus to resolve to a state of #2 Catholic certainty, Vatican 2's ambiguous statements must be restated as #2 clear Catholic teachings, and the contrary possible #3 opposed interpretations must be openly rejected. This would be like a sacrament being given "conditionally" to remove doubts (#1) to move to a state of greater certainty about the validity of the sacrament (#2).
Therefore I believe the practical program to resolve the doubt could be considering Vatican 2 as doubtful, of a Vatican 2 amended document being issued that affirms all exclusive #2 Catholic interpretations of doubtful passages are affirmed, all #3 heretical interpretations are openly rejected, of the Vatican 2 papal claimants who taught doubtfully as being considered "doubtful popes, and therefore no popes" (Catholic principle regarding the papacy), for a new election of a pope to take place based on these clearly agreed upon norms, and then of the situation of the clergy being straightened out.
(For "hardline" sedevacantists, they have no licit clergy and have considered the clergy claimants connected to the Vatican 2 church to be [edit: illicit], leaving sedevacantists without clear clergy - I believe once enough people become sedevacantists, we could probably have a discussion and sort this issue out).
A major objection to "hardline" sedevacantism is emotional, i.e. there are millions of souls of non-sedevacantists endangered if sedevacantism is true, ergo there are attempts to argue against sedevacantism. I propose a "non-hardline" sedevacantist alternative, whereby - where I think textualism and things like "sedeprivationism" may be getting at, in looking for a "third alternative" - that we may be in a situation like the Western Schism, which was not a formal or even material schism for most Catholics who may have followed antipopes innocently, but they were considered to be "fully Catholic" even while "materially" following antipopes.
I propose we may be in a different but similar situation, whereby people who have innocently followed antipopes and false teaching of Vatican 2 "in good faith" may be judged as blameless before God. But, I propose otherwise the practical regimen of like of treating a doubtful sacrament with conditional reception of the sacrament to remove doubts (i.e. such who identify as Catholic should become aware of the Vatican 2 movement not being Catholic, should reject it, and we need to move to a Vatican that has fully rejected the ambiguity of Vatican 2 and such inspired reforms in that direction).
So, if you have any ideas to further this conversation, let me know.