วีดีโอ

Robinson Brian Harris Anthony Jackson William

Taylor Ronald Thomas Jeffrey Williams Laura

Walker Christopher Thompson Jason Harris Steven

New subscriber here supporting you!!! Do not waste another day - *PromoSM*!

O estilo do padre Guerra é maravilhoso. Não sei porque esse António Graça de não sei das quantas o criticou. O Livro dos Cantares vale como poesia verdadeira. Quanto a fidelidade ao original, não estou qualificado para avaliar, mas o estilo é bom.

Muito interessante. Conheci o padre Guerra através da tradução dele do Livro dos Cantares.

A compreensão ficou prejudicada pelo fato de que o palestrante apenas leu um texto, invés de fazer uma exposição oral de cabeça.

Vatican II - A normal council? The mind of the early Church was specific although her formulated doctrine was less specific. For that reason the formulated doctrine needed to be constantly specified to better articulate WHAT WAS ALREADY BELIEVED. Whereas the post-conciliar trend is to modify the mind of the Church to conform to a more generically formulated doctrine. Did Vatican II leave out or ignore some essential Catholic Doctrine? A consideration of Vatican II using the concepts of genus and species. Without getting into the historical background, inner workings and doctrinal details of the Vatican II documents and rather relying on what most Catholics know about it, the following analogy I think is most revealing: Aristotle says that the natural way of learning and coming to know things is from the generic to the more specific. Just as when we see something moving in the distance we first identify it as a body and then as it moves closer an animal and even closer a man and finally as this particular person; Socrates. Now it needs to be understood that there is a difference between our knowledge of a thing and the thing itself. Furthermore if someone were to give the definition of the species of a thing instead of giving the definition of the genus of that thing one would give a more precise and fuller account of the thing. In other words, the more specific our knowledge becomes of something the closer our knowledge resembles the thing, the truer our knowledge is. (Truer, in the sense of having more truth. Adeguatio res et intellectus) This is the natural way man comes to know. To try to move in the opposite direction is unnatural and against human nature. To try to forget what one already KNOWS about something in order to know it more generically is an act of violence against oneself. It would entail force that goes against one's own nature. Using an analogy this would be like a seasoned cavalier who has known horses his whole life attempting to not consider a horse anymore as a horse but rather as an unspecified animal. Now what is more generic and less specific is more universal. Whereas as what is more specific is more exclusive, in the sense that an essential difference is added to the genus in order to define the species. This sets it apart from other species. In the same way when one says the word animal it can apply to many things. Whereas, when one says man it excludes many things and applies to just one type of animal. Now, things that exist in reality ARE NOT generic they are specific. The Church founded by Our Lord is a real existing reality. It is something specific with its own essential elements and properties. A specific account of the Church includes more essential elements than a generic one. The Councils, pronouncements and doctrines throughout the ages became more and more specific. The Church's awareness of itself approached more and more the reality of its own being. It is impossible to move in the other direction. In other words it is impossible to move from a specific knowledge to a more general confused knowledge. A generic knowledge of anything is always more confused than a specific one, just as knowing something only in so far as it is an animal is more confused than knowing it specifically. Instead, our knowledge specifies as we gain acquaintance and experience of a thing. One may object that the Apostles or early Christians had a very clear and specific knowledge of the Church. This is true. However the Church's formulated doctrine was not as specific. Throughout the centuries this doctrine became better formulated and more specific. This was necessary especially to rule out heresy and error. A more generic knowledge on the other hand leaves out essential elements since it can never define as well and as close to reality as a specific account can. Take for instance the treasure of Dogmas the Church has and considering for instance the doctrine of Transubstantiation or the Immaculate Conception. These are very well defined truths of our faith. To try and forget about them and return to a more generic explanation would, at this point in time, leave out essential elements. One may ask, why say "at this point in time" would entail leaving out essential elements? Its necessary to say "at this point in time" since one could object and say that the early Church's catechising was not as formulated as it was post Council of Trent, yet we cannot say that the Church left out essential elements in its teaching at that time. This is true and that is the point. When heresies attacked the faith of the Church, as what happened with Luther's idea of the Real Presence during mass, the older formulation of what happens during the consecration was no longer specific enough. Therefore the Church better and more specifically defined this miracle using the concept of transubstantiation. Any teaching now on the Real Presence which left out the concept of transubstantiation would at this point in time leave out what has become essential elements. Unless we would pretend that the threat of heretical interpretations no longer persists and a generic account would immediately render a correct understanding. However we know this is not the case. Now, in order for Vatican II to be less divisive, open to non Catholics and ALSO IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE CONSENSUS AMONGST THE COUNCIL FATHERS, THE COUNCIL HAD TO REVERSE THE NATURAL PROCEDURE AND PROCLAIM SOMETHING MORE GENERIC THAN PREVIOUS COUNCILS. Now, one could argue that the council taught no error. Entering into this debate is not easy and not for the most of us. However knowing that the council purposefully decided to be less specific and more generic is known by all of us. Can we say that a generic knowledge of a thing is deficient compared to a fuller specific knowledge of a thing? Trying to go against oneself and forget what one once knew or defined creates the impression that one must have been wrong once upon a time. Because why else would one try to forget or forget to mention what one once knew or defined? How many people do we know who have used Vatican II to look back and interpret older Councils? Anything more specific than the Council is frowned upon as superfluous and outdated. But does truth age? Never the less can we blame them for acquiring this habit when this is a natural consequence of artificially regressing and not progressing in knowledge? Of trying to be less specific and more generic? Furthermore, there is a prevalent assumption amongst "post conciliar" Catholics that Vatican II attempted to strip Catholicism of whatever is non essential. But, this leads to a contradiction since to hold this view would be to believe that a specific account is less essential than a generic account. This is the same as saying that the definition of man as rational animal is less essential than defining him as an animal. I would therefore like to ask: Why do we think Vatican II is supposed to be a type of update of Catholicism or a type of refocusing of the Church on what is really essential? Did the Council Fathers intentionally want to be less specific for the sake of truth or was this a consequence of trying to find consensus both internally and with the outside world? Was the Church's self awareness and identity diminished on account of this? Following the proverb Lex orandi lex credendi and its just as true corollary lex credendi lex orandi is it fair to say that an analogy can be drawn: as the new council (specific to generic) compares to the organic evolution of doctrine (generic to specific) so does the new mass compare to the organic evolution of the ancient mass? This leads to the next question: in trying to reverse the natural progression from generic to specific and trying to return to the more generic with the excuse of returning to the mode of expression of the early Church does the real danger exists of actually becoming more generic than the early Church itself? There is an essential difference here: the mind of the early Church was very specific although her formulated doctrine was less specific. For that reason the formulated doctrine needed to be constantly specified to better articulate WHAT WAS ALREADY BELIEVED. Whereas the post-conciliar trend is to modify the mind of the Church to conform to a more generically formulated doctrine.