Blaming it all on Vatican II?

  • Thread starter Thread starter agr4028
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But artificial birth control was always against the teachings of the church. Why weren’t people leaving before VII?
I would say that a lot of liberal-minded Catholics expected a change in Catholic teaching around the time of V2 (in light of the increasing acceptance of ABC in Protestant denominations since the 1930 Lambeth Conference). In fact the commission established by John XXIII to study the question of ABC eventually decided in its favor, overwhelmingly. Due to the steady degradation of morality in the West and the gradual acceptance of birth control in society, many Catholics had succumbed to peer-pressure both from secular society and from their Protestant brethren, and abandoned the Church’s perennial teaching on this matter. Then when HV made it clear that the Church’s teaching would not change, this turned a lot of Catholics off and they left.

So they didn’t leave before V2 because (a) there was less peer-pressure to do so (especially before the “sexual revolution”), and (b) lots of Catholics who did practice ABC before the council were anxiously hoping for a change (in which case there would be no reason to leave), since this had already happened in many Protestant denominations and the Pope had asked for the opinions of various theologians, who eventually approved of it. But the Pope, fortunately, has the last say.
 
StMaria is right. It was bigger than Humanae Vitae. The Church is to be counter to the world. Paul VI lessened disciplines(abstaining from meat Mandatory for most of the Church on Friday, cutting Lent effectively from 40 days of fasting down to 2, receiving Communion one hour fasting, etc) which is not a way to strengthen the faithful;
does unless you fast and do penance ring a bell?
Code:
VII was a rupture with tradition and cannot be followed in it's teachings if one expects to keep and live the faith.  There are people out there that are living the faith in spite of VII.  But it and the Mass that came soon after it is not what nourished countless souls of centuries past.  The obedience we owe legitimate pastors of souls is to be respected.  But if a priest/bishop commands what is morally evil, than we must not consent to it.  If he commands something against the faith and expects it to be taught to the faithful officially, he will lose his office if he ever had it.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us
Who were your Popes in your church between 1965 and now? I see some of them have been named heretics.
 
Who were your Popes in your church between 1965 and now? I see some of them have been named heretics.
But you have to go to Today and now. Going back to this mistake and that, where does it get you, We have had 2 wonderful Popes in the last 30 years. And they are fixing the problems who doesnt have them. But our Faith is still the same. We still havent changed scripture. God said the Church will go through Trials but he also said the Catholic Church will prevail too. Why cant we find the good for a change, Thats what this was truely about really. And as far as the Popes look what is written bad about them today, as least they can defend themselves today. Or at least try. We cant go back we can only go ahead. And they will lead us on the right path they always do. I think our Pope is doing a wonderful job. But as far as the mistakes who knows what they really tried to do. they are not here to defend themselves. How many times do we do something and it blows up in our face, and it was not what our intentions were. But how about all the Good Popes did too. We forget about that. I am a Catholic and would rather talk about the positive not the negative thats all. I love my Church. And it needs my help. And i think if we all pull together and build it back up, we will all be a heck of alot better off. Just my advice ( thats why its free).
 
But you have to go to Today and now. Going back to this mistake and that, where does it get you, We have had 2 wonderful Popes in the last 30 years. And they are fixing the problems who doesnt have them. But our Faith is still the same. We still havent changed scripture. God said the Church will go through Trials but he also said the Catholic Church will prevail too. Why cant we find the good for a change, Thats what this was truely about really. And as far as the Popes look what is written bad about them today, as least they can defend themselves today. Or at least try. We cant go back we can only go ahead. And they will lead us on the right path they always do. I think our Pope is doing a wonderful job. But as far as the mistakes who knows what they really tried to do. they are not here to defend themselves. How many times do we do something and it blows up in our face, and it was not what our intentions were. But how about all the Good Popes did too. We forget about that. I am a Catholic and would rather talk about the positive not the negative thats all. I love my Church. And it needs my help. And i think if we all pull together and build it back up, we will all be a heck of alot better off. Just my advice ( thats why its free).
I agree Rinnie. I was just being sarcastic. Some people complain a lot about the Popes we have had since VII and I was just wondering how they can say they are faithful to the Catholic church while calling the Popes since then heretics and worse. 🙂 Peace.
 
Where is this taking place? Every parish around here is GROWING, big-time. Where is this great decline in Mass attendance that I keep reading about here?

🤷
Read about the Camden Diocese in NJ. Cutting parishes in half!.
 
Oh no ELT, i wasnt talking to you bud. I was just talking in general. Sorry you thought otherwise.
 
And that may well be the case, as I feel it to be as well.

V2 did not give us the inundation of “t and a” television in the 70’s.

V2 did not throw prayer out of public schools.

V2 did not pass out condoms to teenagers in public schools.

V2 did not introduce pedophilia into the priesthood.

V2 did not put R rated language on practically every tv show.

V2 did not tell us that it was ok to open our businesses and work on Sunday.

I think you get the picture. I, like so many of you, have watched our society regress into a moral cesspool. And, it didn’t all happen at the hand of post-V2 Catholics.

Catholics are part of society too. They are subject to all the same temptations and evils that non-Catholics are subject to. There is a whole lot more to the moral decay in America in the last 40 years than how Catholics receive Communion, what language Mass is said in, or whether or not the gals cover their heads when they go to Church.

:twocents:
But it did change the Roman Mass around completely, which really wasn’t needed at all. Hence why we now have two forms. The Eastern Churches, Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic Church never decided to get rid of the Divine Liturgies, after hundreds of years of use. So why did the Roman Rite have to change it’s liturgy completely.
 
But it did change the Roman Mass around completely, which really wasn’t needed at all. Hence why we now have two forms. The Eastern Churches, Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic Church never decided to get rid of the Divine Liturgies, after hundreds of years of use. So why did the Roman Rite have to change it’s liturgy completely.
I guess the shortest way to answer it is why do we do anything that the RCC says, because we believe that Jesus left the Church to the Pope and we will follow him. We must believe in him or we have no church. And we believe that God will lead him to lead us. Thats it pretty simple. Faith.
 
=JReducation;3527829]Pope Benedict XVI gave communion to Tony Blair before he became a Catholic. When the Vatican was asked about it, the answer was that it was permissable, because it was an act of charity. I don’t believe that someone who is as good a theologian as is Benedict, would do something that is gravely sinful.
Tony Blair was receiving communion years before Pope Benedict.
He was not Catholic and should not have been receiving the host.

guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/sep/28/religion.bookextracts

Nor is it just that Blair was regularly receiving communion during the mass service until told to stop by Cardinal Basil Hume, for this by itself is not incompatible with Blair still being an Anglican. Now the prime minister is forced to sit at the back of the church every Sunday while his family go up for communion. Shortly after the cardinal’s decision, Blair met a Roman Catholic priest and joked: “If you give me Holy Communion, I’ll make you Bishop of Liverpool.”
These things in themselves do not prove he is a Catholic. But Blair was doing much more than simply going to mass to be with his family. Before he became prime minister, he regularly attended mass at Westminster Cathedral, more often than not by himself, and always took communion. The priests there knew him well. He would normally either attend the 9am mass with his family, or the 5.30pm mass by himself
Also, when Blair finally converted, he was not asked to recant his positions on abortion or homosexual marriage. The Vatican said that Blair still had some development to do in the faith and that this would take time. The Pope was very pleased with Blair’s entrance into the Church."

It’s is wonderful that Blair has joined the Church but for him to have received communion was wrong. Did you also jump for joy when President Bill Clinton received communion? Who knows maybe he wanted to become Catholic.
The Holy Father supports that God does use the separated Churches and ecclesial communities as a means of salvation, however impertect that means may be, because there is no limit to how God’s mercy can operate. This is not in conflict with tradition.
If we are going to say that Protestants have a ‘means’ of salvation then isn’t it fair to say that they also have a ‘means’ of damnation?
Many of them condone birth control and gay marriage. They condone multiple marriages and without an annulment process their members are living in adultry, which is a mortal sin. Outside of Baptism what grace do they receive? They falsely interpret the bible, many falsely believe in the rapture and ‘once saved always saved’ . Sex outside of marriage is no big deal since they are ‘saved’, abortion is no big deal since they are ‘saved’.
No one is doing them a great service by telling them that they have a ‘means of salvation’ without telling them that they do not have the 'necessary’ means, that is** all **of the sacraments.
 
If we are going to say that Protestants have a ‘means’ of salvation then isn’t it fair to say that they also have a ‘means’ of damnation?
It’s what the phrase doesn’t say that is problematic - it doesn’t say exactly how these sects can be a means for salvation, it doesn’t address the *rejection *of Divine Truth which every one of these sects contain to some degree or another, it doesn’t address the reality that if one is *culpably *holding to these rejections of the Divine Truth then their eternal soul is in grave peril, and it doesn’t address the normative necessity of being incorporated into the visible bonds of HMC for salvation.

It does sound nice and friendly though. Nice and friendly gets kind of outweighed by giving the erroneous impression that 2000 years of constant Christian teaching has been turned on it’s head.

Ah well, Christ promised errors in faith and morals would never be bound for the faithful in His Church - He didn’t promise that there wouldn’t be ambiguous statements prone to be taken the wrong way.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
 
I guess the shortest way to answer it is why do we do anything that the RCC says, because we believe that Jesus left the Church to the Pope and we will follow him. We must believe in him or we have no church. And we believe that God will lead him to lead us. Thats it pretty simple. Faith.
We have to remember also that there’s more the the Catholic Faith than the Pope. They sin, and not every decision they make is right, and there are examples of this (pre-Vatican II). The Lord does guide the Pope, but as history shows, not all Popes have been good Christians, they make mistakes. Somethimes through malice, sometimes in ignorance, sometimes they just made bad decisions with good intentions. The Lord will keep His Church together no matter what and *that *needs to be the focus, not the false mentality that because a man is Pope he can do no wrong. This is a reason why people leave the Church…we’ve got to be careful.
 
We have to remember also that there’s more the the Catholic Faith than the Pope. They sin, and not every decision they make is right, and there are examples of this (pre-Vatican II). The Lord does guide the Pope, but as history shows, not all Popes have been good Christians, they make mistakes. Somethimes through malice, sometimes in ignorance, sometimes they just made bad decisions with good intentions. The Lord will keep His Church together no matter what and *that *needs to be the focus, not the false mentality that because a man is Pope he can do no wrong. This is a reason why people leave the Church…we’ve got to be careful.
Yes i know that he is human, dont get me wrong, and i know that he is only perfect in explaining scripture. But like i said God still put him in charge, and ill do what he says. He is the leader. God will guide him, thats all. But yes i understand and agree with your points. thankyou and have a good one.
 
Tony Blair was receiving communion years before Pope Benedict.
He was not Catholic and should not have been receiving the host.
StMaria, the law is very clear. It’s not really up to the laity to decide the law. The law of the Church says that an Ordinary (this is a Bishop or a Major Religious Superior, he doesn’t have to be a bishop) . . . an Ordinary can determine if there is reason to give communion and other sacraments to non Catholics who believe in the sacraments as Catholics do.

We have to accept that Blair believed in the real presence and that the Bishop or Major Religious Superior who made the decision felt it was necessary to give him communion. We can’t second guess every decision that these folks make. First, they make too many decisions on a daily basis for us to keep up with. Second, we don’t know their reasoning. We have to do as John Paul II said, “Be not afraid.”
If we are going to say that Protestants have a ‘means’ of salvation then isn’t it fair to say that they also have a ‘means’ of damnation?
So do Catholics. Damnation is a personal choice, a fundamental option made by the individual, not his faith community.
Many of them condone birth control and gay marriage. They condone multiple marriages and without an annulment process their members are living in adultry, which is a mortal sin. Outside of Baptism what grace do they receive? They falsely interpret the bible, many falsely believe in the rapture and ‘once saved always saved’ . Sex outside of marriage is no big deal since they are ‘saved’, abortion is no big deal since they are ‘saved’.
No one is doing them a great service by telling them that they have a ‘means of salvation’ without telling them that they do not have the 'necessary’ means, that is** all **of the sacraments.
Did you read the encyclical? There are many graces that they receive and that they can share with the Church according to the teaching of the Church itself.

The Church has never said that it is a perfect union. It is simply saying that there is a union between them, as well as other believers, and the Catholic Church.

The Church is calling Catholics to a conversion of our own. We have to understand the true meaning of the word Church.

I strongly suggest that you look up Ut Unum Sint and read it for yourself.

Here’s the link.

newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02uu.htm

JR 🙂
 
StMaria, the law is very clear. It’s not really up to the laity to decide the law. The law of the Church says that an Ordinary (this is a Bishop or a Major Religious Superior, he doesn’t have to be a bishop) . . . an Ordinary can determine if there is reason to give communion and other sacraments to non Catholics who believe in the sacraments as Catholics do.
Not just a “reason” - but a grave necessity.

(CCC 1401) When, in the Ordinary’s judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions.
This means the non-Catholic receiving should hold as true what Holy Mother church holds to be true. This would include holding as true the intrinsic evil of abortion, homosexual behavior, etc. And unfortunately, Mr. Blair publicly supported and lobbied for such things. Also unfortunately, it doesn’t appear to be possible that reception of Holy Communion could have been of grave necessity (over and over and over again) - because somewhere in all these grave necessities to receive, their was ample opportunity to convert to HMC.

Yet, the responsibility for this decision does indeed fall on the Bishop here. And we need to pray for him and for all the faithful scandalized by such behavior. I can only hope and pray there were some really unique factors we are not privvy to.

But even the appearance of impropriety scandalizes the faithful - and thus should be avoided.

Pretending scandal does not exist is not meritorious - wishing it away accomplishes nothing. Acknowledging it and praying for all parties involved is the way to go.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
 
Tell me, does that not being able to dissent against Church teaching extend to priests and bishops as well? If you go back up to post #28, you will see quoted that Cardinal Ratzinger doesn’t think the Old Testament wasn’t particularly clear on the signs and ways to recognize the Messiah. Vatican Council I states that we are to interpret the Sacred Scriptures as the Church has always done, and not to let any novelty come in.
Cardinal Ratzinger (then) did not say anything that was in conflict with Vatican I. He says simply the Jewish people cannot see what we see in the OT because Jesus is hidden in the covenant and it’s not easy for them to see it.

Hind sight is always 20/20. The Church sees it, because we are looking back and comparing the NT to the OT. He is saying that it will take time for the Jewish people to see the connections.

There is nothing wrong with that.

As our Holy Father John Paul II said, “Do not be afraid.”

JR 🙂
 
=JReducation;3530421]StMaria, the law is very clear. It’s not really up to the laity to decide the law. The law of the Church says that an Ordinary (this is a Bishop or a Major Religious Superior, he doesn’t have to be a bishop) . . . an Ordinary can determine if there is reason to give communion and other sacraments to non Catholics who believe in the sacraments as Catholics do.
**We have to accept that Blair believed in the real presence **
And do you believe that President Bill Clinton believed in the Real Presence? When he received communion in 1998 he was involved in his affair with Monica L. and I don’t believe that he went to confession.
So do Catholics. Damnation is a personal choice, a fundamental option made by the individual, not his faith community
.
But “means of salvation” refers to their faith community. The Catholic Church does not have “means of damnation” only the necessary means of salvation.
Did you read the encyclical? There are many graces that they receive and that they can share with the Church according to the teaching of the Church itself.
Yes I have read it. You like to quote from it so let me ask you to explain some of it.

"
the elements of sanctification and truth" which in various ways are present and operative beyond the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: "For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and of action, and who show a true religious zeal. **They lovingly believe in God **the Father Almighty and in Christ, Son of God and Savior. They are consecrated by Baptism, through which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and receive other sacraments within their own Churches or Ecclesial Communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist, and cultivate devotion towards the Virgin Mother of God. They also share with us **in prayer **and other spiritual benefits.
The Anglicans, Lutherans etc. have no authority to interpret scripture so what means of salvation is that? They do not have a valid Eucharist so they receive no spiritual benefit there, yes they have a valid baptism, that is good, devotion to Mary, ok, share with us in prayer, ok. That’s not much. Is that the “means” to salvation?
The Council’s Decree on Ecumenism, referring to the Orthodox Churches, went so far as to declare that "through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature
"
Orthodox Churches, no problem there
Many elements of great value (eximia), which in the Catholic Church are part of the fullness of the **means of salvation **and of the gifts of grace which make up the Church, are also found in the other Christian Communities.
So what means of salvation are there for the Baptists, Church of Christ, Assembly of God, Rev Joe’s Apostolic Church of God?
Communion? No. Scripture? No, they interpret scripture to their liking. Prayer? Ok. Baptism? yes. Sacrament of Marriage? Only the first marriage. Of course they condone multiple marriages, in other words they condone adultry.
That’s not much. If that is enough to be saved, then why be Catholic?
 
And do you believe that President Bill Clinton believed in the Real Presence? When he received communion in 1998 he was involved in his affair with Monica L. and I don’t believe that he went to confession.
.
But “means of salvation” refers to their faith community. The Catholic Church does not have “means of damnation” only the necessary means of salvation.

Yes I have read it. You like to quote from it so let me ask you to explain some of it.

"

The Anglicans, Lutherans etc. have no authority to interpret scripture so what means of salvation is that? They do not have a valid Eucharist so they receive no spiritual benefit there, yes they have a valid baptism, that is good, devotion to Mary, ok, share with us in prayer, ok. That’s not much. Is that the “means” to salvation?

"
Orthodox Churches, no problem there

So what means of salvation are there for the Baptists, Church of Christ, Assembly of God, Rev Joe’s Apostolic Church of God?
Communion? No. Scripture? No, they interpret scripture to their liking. Prayer? Ok. Baptism? yes. Sacrament of Marriage? Only the first marriage. Of course they condone multiple marriages, in other words they condone adultry.
That’s not much. If that is enough to be saved, then why be Catholic?
In essence, are you saying that you disagree with the encyclical?

JR 🙂
 
… That’s not much. If that is enough to be saved, then why be Catholic?
Because it is the truth. I do not begrudge God’s Mercy to anyone else whether they are believers or not. I am only grateful that I have the Pope, the Magisterium, Our Blessed Lady, the Holy Saints, The Eucharist, the History, the Beauty, the Joy of being a Catholic and being a part of His wonderful wonderful home.

Why be a Catholic? Because it is the greatest joy and peace that can be found in the universe - here and beyond.

I think that if you are Catholic only because it is a duty, a requirement, you may just be missing the whole point of God’s love.
 
Maybe we should look at this through the mysticism of John Paul II. We may find that we’re not being asked to give up our faith, to go deeper into it.

This was a man who saw everything through the eyes of prayer. As he prayed he realized some things that had never been considered. Their newness is what may appear shocking to some people. But in reality, what he wrote and said about the Church is what he claimed to be revealed to him by the Holy Spirit during his hours of contemplative prayer. We cannot deny that the Holy Spirit does reveal great mysteries and truths to the mystics.

For more than two decades we were blessed with a Pontiff who was a mystic. His biographers attest to this as do his closest friends, including Pope Benedict himself.

As to what he says regarding other faith communities, granted that it’s new to our ears; but it is not in conflict with what other popes have said. What seems to have happened, according to John Paul’s biographers, is that through mystical contemplation he saw a meaning of “Church” and “unity” that his predecessors had not seen, but that they would not disagree with if they had.

John Paul, much like St. Francis of Assisi, saw the Church as the mother of all people. He takes from this vision the fact that a good mother never abandons her children, even if they leave her. A good mother always finds a way to bring her children back. A good mother always finds a way to maintain the bond between her and her children. Ultimately, what he drew from his life of prayer was very much the same as what St. Francis discovered through his own life of prayer.

When Francis was praying he heard Christ’s voice telling him, “Go repair my Church. Can’t you see that’s it’s falling into ruin.” It wasn’t a question, it was a command. But Francis did not take that command in the negative and begin to attack everything that was wrong with the Church or that was in ruins in the Church. He understood that command in the positive. The Church must be loved and saved. Thus he set out for Rome to present his plan for the Church’s healing to Pope Innocent III.

Francis plan seemed very radical to Pope Innocent III, very much like John Paul’s plan may seem very radical to us today. But as St. Teresa of Avila said, “Saints never make sense. That’s why I prefer scholars.” Look who’s talking, right!

John Paul sees that the divisions among people of faith are hurting the Mystical Body, much the same way that Francis saw the divisions of his time hurting the Mystical Body. Like Francis, the Holy Spirit guided John Paul to look at the word “Church” and ask himself, “What does it really mean?” He arrives at the conclusion that it means a mother with children who are loved by the same Father and who share the life of the same Father, but have drifted in different directions.

So John Paul presses forward with this vision of the Church as mother in mind. This is a mother who is out to rescue her children at all costs. She must show her children that they are still sons and daughters of the same Father. They still have his life in them.

So, when John Paul writes about the Reformation communities having Catholic elements to them and that the Spirit of Christ uses those as a means to salvation, this is what he is doing. He’s pointing out to Catholics and to these communities that they are still sons and daughters of the Church, even if they have run away from home, because they cannot deny their spiritual heritage. He points to some of the elements that are still present among them: scripture, acceptance of Christ as Lord and God, faith in redemption, prayer, some sacraments, some regard or even love for Mary, and even martyrdom for the faith.

In this regard, John Paul imitates St. Dominic who founded an Order of Preachers to teach the unbelievers and the heretics of his time that Christ was still with them and to invite them back to dialogue with their mother for the sake of settling their differences. St. Dominic never promised that the Church would give up its faith. He never said that there was salvation outside the Church. What he did preach to the unbelievers of his time is that even though they had run away from their mother, they were still part of her. Even a child who is given up for adoption or who runs away from home, cannot cut off his genetic connection with the birth mother.

So too, John Paul picks up on the same theme as St. Dominic. He reminds all Christians, Catholic and Reformation Christians, that their Catholic genes are still intact. The proof is that even though they have denied such elements as Holy Orders, the Papacy, Marian doctrines, devotion to saints, the Sacrament of Reconciliation and other elements, they still have their faith in Christ as the God-Man and Messiah. They still have their faith in the Trinity. They still have their faith in the Scriptures. They still have their faith in power of prayer. They still believe in practice of virtue. They still have a desire to be united with Christ through their imperfect communion service. Like Dominic, John Paul also has the same vision from the Holy Spirit, that all of these things that they still have are not a result of their separation from the Church. On the contrary, they are remnants of their Catholic heritage.

In fact, John Paul arrives at the conclusion that these Christians do have the Spirit of Christ. It is the spirit of Christ that unites them to the Church, even though the union is less than perfect, because they have missing elements. However, what he does bring to the table that is Good News, that the Reformation Christians have a connection to salvation. This is something to be celebrated.

Even while we await a full communion between all people, it is Good News to know that God’s mercy has not abandoned those who are not in full communion with the Church.

JR 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top