Bishop Barron nails it on the head (Vatican II)

  • Thread starter Thread starter steph03
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Attacks on V2:
  1. Attract more readers than articles encouraging readers to work, at prolife, for instance.
  2. Keep asking questions that have already been fully answered.
  3. Rely on quotes from scholars who were not at the Council, never met anyone who was there, rather than first hand information.
  4. Create “mysteries” in the mind of the reader by omitting readily available information, implying manipulation, secret agendas, cover-ups that continue to this day.
  5. The same websites that push this agenda also promote a hermeneutics of suspicion toward the current bishops.
 
I guess the bishop assumes the audience is aware of all or most of the specific criticisms of V2, and so he doesn’t say what they are. I am not so this talk seems intended for a heavily academic audience. Still, I don’t see how one doesn’t give specific examples. Speaking of divisions can be a bit divisive itself. Better I think to address specific disagreements. I’m comforted, though, to hear that our Pope has a similar perspective to Benedict XVI and John Paul II.
 
Buks said:
I guess the bishop assumes the audience is aware of all or most of the specific criticisms of V2, and so he doesn’t say what they are. I am not so this talk seems intended for a heavily academic audience. Still, I don’t see how one doesn’t give specific examples. Speaking of divisions can be a bit divisive itself. Better I think to address specific disagreements.
Click to expand...
A few of his examples are referenced in post 5, from Word on Fire.

If you want other examples of what he’s likely objecting to, look at some articles people post on CAF, or Facebook, originating on OnePeterFive, Rorate, Remnant, etc.

There you find analysis of V2, where no one sentence is a lie, but crucial information is omitted, questionable motives or manipulation of the bishops is implied, but not stated directly. Based on other things I’ve read by +Barron, I’m guessing that’s what’s referred to.

It’s not what they put in, but what they omit.

If you haven’t read the documents of V2, I suggest you look at them.
 
Last edited:
Bishop Barron expresses Pope Francis’ charism so well. That Vatican II is “in his bones, he’s a man of the council.” That’s the aspect that nourishes my faith.
 
I’ve just watched that video through. This speaker makes the mistake of Protestants that tradition is beholden to a period of history rather than to the gospel. It’s hard for people to let go of the temporal and trust in the Holy Spirit. Praying for his conversion.
 
Motherwit said:
This speaker makes the mistake of Protestants that tradition is beholden to a period of history rather than to the gospel.
Click to expand...
That’s an interesting yet unproductively vague and generalized statement. If you could cite a time stamp I have little doubt that context can shed light.
Motherwit said:
It’s hard for people to let go of the temporal and trust in the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
Another interesting, albeit ironic statement. By the power of the Holy Spirit, infallible truths have already been revealed in past Councils. Instead of trusting in what had been established, it seems that people cant let go of the temporal sensibilities and inclinations of the modern era.

In any case, I’m no scholar. I do, however, see the sensibility and reason of Bishop Vigano’s position. I shared it to add some balance to this thread.
Motherwit said:
Praying for his conversion.
Click to expand...
Let us pray for the conversion of us all.
 
Last edited:
I watched the whole video. Taylor makes the same mistake many other Traditionalist Catholics make: they equate worship too closely with doctrine (“lex orandi, lex credendi”) too the point that any change in worship is tantamount to denying the Creed. This was the problem at the close of the Council: many Catholics were not discipled, and their faith rested too heavily on Sunday Mass attendance. When the Mass was changed, their faith was pulled out from underneath them and they left. They had memorized penny catechisms but they had never had a life-changing experience with Jesus Christ. Many Catholics did not have the formation to weather the storm of the 60’s, and they fell away.

While I love traditional worship (I’m one of the two MC’s for our TLM at our parish and I started a men’s Schola with my buddy 17 years ago, and I oftentimes pray the Office in the 1962 BR), I don’t consider my missal a catechism and I don’t let my ability to recite the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar from memory or chant Credo III with my eyes closed act as a substitute for personal discipleship and the need to share the Gospel with a darkened world. I’m not saying that everyone who attends the EF is using it as a “look how holy and Catholic I am” card. I’m saying that it is DEFINITELY a mountaintop experience…but you need to come down from the mountain and bring fallen souls to Christ, not to Mass. That comes later.
 
Buks said:
I guess the bishop assumes the audience is aware of all or most of the specific criticisms of V2, and so he doesn’t say what they are. I am not so this talk seems intended for a heavily academic audience.
Click to expand...
Well, there’s certainly a good bit of Catholic “inside baseball” in his talk! So, I think it’s fair to say that Bp Barron’s intent wasn’t to provide an introduction to the topic of 2VC or to detail particular problems that various people have with the council. After all, that’s the “concilium” perspective he mentions – those who want to re-hash the council rather than implement it – don’t you think?
 
Gorgias said:
40.png
Buks:
I guess the bishop assumes the audience is aware of all or most of the specific criticisms of V2, and so he doesn’t say what they are. I am not so this talk seems intended for a heavily academic audience.
Click to expand...
Well, there’s certainly a good bit of Catholic “inside baseball” in his talk! So, I think it’s fair to say that Bp Barron’s intent wasn’t to provide an introduction to the topic of 2VC or to detail particular problems that various people have with the council. After all, that’s the “concilium” perspective he mentions – those who want to re-hash the council rather than implement it – don’t you think?
Click to expand...
  1. The Bishop’s talk was keynote of a larger virtual conference, likely attended by religious professionals. I encourage following his Word on Fire series, designed for a general audience.
  2. It’s not harmless when publishers and websites trash bishops, past and present, in order to boost sales, or divert millions of dollars and energy that should be going to prolife, and other lay action called by the Council.
 
commenter said:
It’s not harmless when publishers and websites trash bishops, past and present…
Click to expand...
To be fair the bishops largely made their own beds when they covered up abuse. Something that skyrocketed after the Council, oddly.
 
commenter said:
It’s not harmless when publishers and websites trash bishops, past and present, in order to boost sales, or divert millions of dollars and energy that should be going to prolife, and other lay action called by the Council.
Click to expand...
And you think that this is a new or modern development?
StudentMI said:
To be fair the bishops largely made their own beds when they covered up abuse. Something that skyrocketed after the Council, oddly.
Click to expand...
It didn’t “skyrocket” after the 1960’s. It was present far earlier.

And, am I correct in inferring that you’re suggesting that the trashing of the Council only began around 2000, as the scandal broke? That’s hardly the case.
 
Gorgias said:
And, am I correct in inferring that you’re suggesting that the trashing of the Council only began around 2000, as the scandal broke? That’s hardly the case.
Click to expand...
No you are incorrect.

As for the stats I’ve seen on the crisis like in the John Jay Report, unless I’m not remembering correctly, the numbers rose exponentially in the late 60s and early 70s.
 
StudentMI said:
40.png
Gorgias:
And, am I correct in inferring that you’re suggesting that the trashing of the Council only began around 2000, as the scandal broke? That’s hardly the case.
Click to expand...
No you are incorrect.

As for the stats I’ve seen on the crisis like in the John Jay Report, unless I’m not remembering correctly, the numbers rose exponentially in the late 60s and early 70s.
Click to expand...
There are a couple of problems with your assertion, though:
  • The John Jay report began with data from 1950, so it’s difficult to talk about trends prior to that timeframe, based on that study.
  • The “exponential rise” that we see in the data began prior to 2VC. As such, it’s difficult to conclude that it caused the abuse, wouldn’t you say?
  • It’s difficult to pin down what you’re trying to say about the timing of the ‘trashing’, vis-a-vis the timeframes of the abuse and of 2VC.
    • Even if the abuse was occurring in the 60’s and 70’s, it wasn’t widely known by the public. Therefore, you can only reasonably be talking about “trashing” over the last 20-30 years. You yourself admit that the trash-talk regarding 2VC occurred far earlier. That dynamic cannot be laid at the feet of a scandal that broke 20 years after the trash talk had already started.
  • “Correlation does not imply causation”, right?
So, if you want to show a link between “trash talk” and the abuse, it seems like a you’re engaging in a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. But, the real problem is that you’re not saying “the one event happened after the other, and therefore because of it” – you’re essentially saying “the one event happened before the other, and therefore the earlier event happened because of the later event”…! 🤔
 
Last edited:
I’m sorry to say you’re overanalyzing what I said. I just made an offhand comment and you’re analyzing it to death.

As for the occurrence prior to the 50s, I have my beliefs about how common it was prior to that and throughout Church history. But I don’t want to derail the thread further.
 
StudentMI said:
I’m sorry to say you’re overanalyzing what I said. I just made an offhand comment and you’re analyzing it to death.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I am. But, that’s because the comment didn’t make logical sense to me. 🤷‍♂️
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top