A
Annie
Guest
Two different kinds of rights.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
thrasher59
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
O
otjm
Guest
Well, I suspect that since Trent was dealing with issues from 500 to 600 years ago, and Vatican 2 was dealing with current issues, anyone who sees a big difference between the two should be doing so. Some of those people who have issues with Vatican 2 repeat a mantra from who knows where, that it “did not address new doctrine”. But not a single one of them can say why that makes the slightest bit of difference, as Vatican 2 was a Council following up on Vatican 1, which never finished all of its agenda, and further, Vatican 2 issued the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church and the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. So while not decreeing new new doctrine, they ignore that the Church did significant work on dogmas.In my view it seems that the people who really have a problem with Vatican II see a big difference between those two councils
This came up in another thread. What appears to be the largest Traditional group in union with the Church is the FSSP, which dates back to 1988. And they are growing at a very small number of individuals being ordained per year. The numbers are not easily obtained and they are in service to the world so should be attracting candidates for the priesthood from a world-wide perspective. They state that they have 122 priests worldwide since 1988. That is in no way denigrating them; simply a matter of perspective. Started by 12 priests who left the SSPX, in 32 years they have added 100 priests total (likely a few more ordinations as some of the older members may have died). In one year (2018) there were 518.That minority is growing and it has some very encouraging numbers for vocations compared to the rest of the Church.
As to the minority growing, that is a constantly repeated statement with no facts shown. The growth of parishes providing the EF appears to have stabilized at just under 3% nationwide, and is the range of parishes from those which could be considered EF parishes (i.e. those having EF Masses exclusively) to parishes which may have an EF Mass once a week to once a month. I would have no hesitation to say that the EF Mass was spreading further or that attendance at EF Masses was up, but all I ever find is anecdotal comments based on an individual experience. I certainly would invite actual evidence of growth.
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
In 1864 the Church still was a the governmental ruler in parts of Europe - in particular Italy.
In 1868 Vatican 1 started; at or about the time they took a break, the revolution occurred, overthrowing the governance of the Church (and successive popes found themselves "prisoners of the Vatican) as the Italian States rebelled against papal rule. The church was highly suspicious of the United States and its form of government, which, given the history starting with Charlemagne up to the Italian revolution was an incremental increase in the Church involving itself directly in political matters.
By the time of Vatican 2, the Church was no longer a governing political force in Europe, and the attitude toward the United States had changed; likely in part to the fact that baptized Catholics in the US were in greater attendance at weekly Mass than they were in Europe. When Pope Benedict wrote about a “remnant Church” it appears he was speaking primarily about Europe, as there are few if any European countries with Mass attendance exceeding 5%, and the US is about 4 to 5 times that amount - no great number, but a bit of perspective.
The Church - like most of its enemies from the time of the Protestant revolution onward conflated faith, Church, and civil politics. Little spoken of was the fact that during the Protestant revolution, German princes were rebelling against the Church and thus feeding the revolution, again because of a conflation of theology/morality/liturgy with influence or outright governance of civil matters. The good pope may have considered that matters which were political were therefore theological. It is a bit hard to support that with the Gospels.
In 1868 Vatican 1 started; at or about the time they took a break, the revolution occurred, overthrowing the governance of the Church (and successive popes found themselves "prisoners of the Vatican) as the Italian States rebelled against papal rule. The church was highly suspicious of the United States and its form of government, which, given the history starting with Charlemagne up to the Italian revolution was an incremental increase in the Church involving itself directly in political matters.
By the time of Vatican 2, the Church was no longer a governing political force in Europe, and the attitude toward the United States had changed; likely in part to the fact that baptized Catholics in the US were in greater attendance at weekly Mass than they were in Europe. When Pope Benedict wrote about a “remnant Church” it appears he was speaking primarily about Europe, as there are few if any European countries with Mass attendance exceeding 5%, and the US is about 4 to 5 times that amount - no great number, but a bit of perspective.
The Church - like most of its enemies from the time of the Protestant revolution onward conflated faith, Church, and civil politics. Little spoken of was the fact that during the Protestant revolution, German princes were rebelling against the Church and thus feeding the revolution, again because of a conflation of theology/morality/liturgy with influence or outright governance of civil matters. The good pope may have considered that matters which were political were therefore theological. It is a bit hard to support that with the Gospels.
O
otjm
Guest
The SSPX is hardly a place I would look for clarification of theology.
Here’s another statement from the CMRI that explains the position.
https://www.stmichaels.org/traditional-catholic-faith/vacancy-of-the-holy-see/
https://www.stmichaels.org/traditional-catholic-faith/vacancy-of-the-holy-see/
Emeraldlady
New member
How do Catholics without a living Magisterium address the issues of the times?(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
O
otjm
Guest
Okay, folks, lets put this in perspective. From the article , here is a quote:
" MODERN HIERARCHY OF THE VATICAN II CHURCH: In the light of the above, it must be concluded that the modern hierarchy who have approved and implemented the errors of Vatican II no longer represent the Catholic Church and her lawful authority."
Ummmm… Lets see… 2,151 bishops of the world (almost the entire number of bishops) at Vatican 2 voted on Sacrosanctum Concilium; 2,147 voted for it and 4 against it.
Matthew 16:18: “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.”
For the first quote to be true, it means a complete and utter apostasy of not only the Pope but also the bishops of the world; it also has to mean that Christ was a liar. Not much further needs to be said.
Thus it is confirmed that there are whackadoodles. Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail over the Church; not that there would be no heresies of schisms. That a priest, or a group of priests could go off the deep end is amply proven from history - see, e.g, the Arian heresy which took out priests and bishops; and see Luther and all that proceeded from his errors.
None of the bishops at Vatican 2 were sedevacantists, and none, to my knowledge, became so afterwards, Including Archbishop Lefevre, who took a different route.
Arguing theology with these folks brings to mind the saying: “Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” If they wish to get down and get serious about their claims; they may take them to The Church; which, given their position is not likely to happen.
" MODERN HIERARCHY OF THE VATICAN II CHURCH: In the light of the above, it must be concluded that the modern hierarchy who have approved and implemented the errors of Vatican II no longer represent the Catholic Church and her lawful authority."
Ummmm… Lets see… 2,151 bishops of the world (almost the entire number of bishops) at Vatican 2 voted on Sacrosanctum Concilium; 2,147 voted for it and 4 against it.
Matthew 16:18: “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.”
For the first quote to be true, it means a complete and utter apostasy of not only the Pope but also the bishops of the world; it also has to mean that Christ was a liar. Not much further needs to be said.
Thus it is confirmed that there are whackadoodles. Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail over the Church; not that there would be no heresies of schisms. That a priest, or a group of priests could go off the deep end is amply proven from history - see, e.g, the Arian heresy which took out priests and bishops; and see Luther and all that proceeded from his errors.
None of the bishops at Vatican 2 were sedevacantists, and none, to my knowledge, became so afterwards, Including Archbishop Lefevre, who took a different route.
Arguing theology with these folks brings to mind the saying: “Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” If they wish to get down and get serious about their claims; they may take them to The Church; which, given their position is not likely to happen.
Last edited:
S
SPQR1
Guest
They usually talk to a priest who gives them an opinion. Of course, the problem with no authority means that there can be as many different opinions as there are priests.
T
TMC
Guest
This is a point that is not made enough, IMO. A higher percentage of bishops participated in Vatican II than any other council. And they were essentially unanimous, which was not the case in many councils.As an example: have you read Sacrosanctum Concilium in its entirety? You might note that 2,151 bishops of the world (which was nearly all the bishops of the world) voted on the acceptance of the document; out of that number, 2,147 voted in favor and four against.
T
TheMortenBay
Guest
This always comes up. I can’t speak for the FSSP, but my local TLM has grown substantially. All of the young converts I know go to the TLM. (I go to both forms of the Mass in a number of parishes, so I can actually gauge who goes where).This came up in another thread. What appears to be the largest Traditional group in union with the Church is the FSSP, which dates back to 1988. And they are growing at a very small number of individuals being ordained per year.
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
Again, and with no disrespect, this is a prime example of anecdotal information,This always comes up. I can’t speak for the FSSP, but my local TLM has grown substantially.
There are two groups which report on what parishes across the US have the EF (one of the two also covers Canada, Guam and Puerto Rico. I presume they are relatively accurate as I have no reason to believe otherwise; they also list parishes which had the EF and it was rotated to another parish, or cancelled; and they list Mass days and times.
Telling me that there is more interest in a local area does not account for the rest of the nation. Your area may well be growing and a number of other areas may be shrinking, with some parishes canceling. When I hear/see someone reporting that the EF is growing, and what they are talking about is one or several parishes, that does not translate meaningfully as to the whole of the US.
A couple of years ago there was a post of an article written by a priest who says the Ef and wants to see it grow. However, the substance of the article was that he felt that the EF was apparently becoming somewhat insular, and that if proponents of it did not start aggressively promoting it, it could realistically be in danger of disappearing. I certainly don’t know how much contact he had with other priests who say the EF, but I would presume there is correspondence within the group as a whole, or within a significant number of priests. I have a parish within a few miles of me which has the EF, and the attendance appears to hover closer to 75 people than 100; it is said at about 6:30 a.m. In no way do I presume that is standard; on the other hand, there does not appear to be much if any growth in the number of parishes US wide.
I am aware that there are parishes which have the EF and draw for surrounding parishes - part of which is likely related to the number of priests willing and able to say it, as well as a scheduling issue with parishes which may have a series of OF Masses on the weekend.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.