Bishop Barron nails it on the head (Vatican II)

  • Thread starter Thread starter steph03
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, because founding an Institute dedicated to Evangelization and giving talks about the correct interpretation of VII is doing nothing. . . .
 
Last edited:
I think part of the problem that people don’t talk about enough is that Bishop Barron’s social media and series are, well, they’re kind of blase. A lot of it is just ‘inspiring’ images and soundbytes that most of the time seem like preaching to the choir. It’s not really conducive to evangelization, in my opinion.
 
Personally, you mean?

I don’t think that’s what’s being claimed here, as such.

As long as you define what “within” means, in this context. (It means “through”, and not “limited to the visible boundaries of”, btw…)
buffalo said:
In 2020 can anyone say the fruits of the council have bettered the Church?
Click to expand...
It’s only been 50 years. How fast do you think the Church moves?

And yes, there have been benefits.

In any council, there are opposing ‘forces’! How’s 2VC any different?

That’s the whole point, isn’t it? That these weren’t speaking to a generation.
and now we have things like Universalism and Dispensationalism plaguing the Church.
Click to expand...
these are coming from outside the Church, not from within it. Certainly, we need to catechize better, but you’re mischaracterizing the source of the problem, I think.
  • “indifferentism, universalism, dispensationalism”. You’re not really claiming that these are coming from the Church… are you?
  • “bad music, ‘cool uncle’ priests” – I would say that these are characteristics of a certain age (which, we might suggest, is waning).
Gee… “we didn’t form our priests well enough and didn’t police their behavior well enough” sounds about right, doesn’t it? And… isn’t that precisely a failure of administration? 😉

Is the answer theologically incorrect, in your opinion? Is the answer “no, you must believe in Jesus and be a member of the visible Church in order to be saved” what the Church teaches? And if not, why are you railing against it?
 
He has addressed it, quite directly. It appears you just don’t like what he says.
 
MarkRome said:
The Holy Spirit guided it as He does with every ecumenical council.
Click to expand...
There’s two problems with this:
  1. The Council’s documents were at times ignored as the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ became dominant. Said ‘Spirit’ is not infallible.
  2. Even Cardinal Brandmuller has said not all the documents of the Council are of the same authority.
 
StudentMI said:
The Council’s documents were at times ignored as the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ became dominant. Said ‘Spirit’ is not infallible.
Click to expand...
Not talking about what happened after the council, I am talking about the council itself. It was a valid ecumenical council that was guided by the Holy Spirit. To deny this is to deny Christ.
 
StudentMI said:
I see you cut out the part about Brandmuller.
Click to expand...
Not intentionally. His statement again answer whether the council is a valid ecumenical council guided by the Holy Spirit. Was VII a valid ecumenical council guided by the Holy Spirit?
 
Like helping the poor and immigrants?

(BTW, I am not a democrat or republican. Both parties have correct Catholic social teachings within them and both have incorrect views.
 
MarkRome said:
Not talking about what happened after the council, I am talking about the council itself. It was a valid ecumenical council that was guided by the Holy Spirit. To deny this is to deny Christ.
Click to expand...
That is why I asked about the fruits of the council. The council itself does not change any dogma or doctrine.
 
MarkRome said:
Was VII a valid ecumenical council guided by the Holy Spirit?
Click to expand...
Given that you said those who ‘deny’ the Holy Spirit led the Council (which issued documents not all of the same authority per Cardinal Brandmuller) deny Christ, people might be hesitant to take a purity test administered by you.
 
And to limit those forces and agents solely to the forces and agents of evil is equally naive.

And what’s wrong with that? Scholasticism and Thomism do not equal Catholic theology. The Eastern Catholic Churches have a totally different approach to theology than the scholastic West, but our approach is every bit as traditional.

Theology doesn’t convert. Our Faith isn’t a sales pitch. The only effective method of evangelization is the method used by Christ Himself - a method of encounter that culminates in a call to conversion and is then nourished by ongoing discipleship.
 
MarkRome said:
Sorry. I shouldn’t assume you are even Catholic. I know many on here aren’t.
Click to expand...
I happen to be Catholic, yes. I just have been in such purity tests before by both traditionalist and liberal Catholics and don’t like them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top