Blaming it all on Vatican II?

[stmaria]

Originally Posted by stmaria
… 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.

The Catholic Church has the necessary means for salvation. Everything that you listed. But if I were a Baptist and somone told me that Vatican II said my faith has the “means of salvation” I would not even consider the Catholic Church. Why should I. I would just stay a Baptist.
Yet if someone read to me what was taught **before Vatican II **it would make me take a look at the Catholic faith.

Pius X
“If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell**…if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult.** A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to confession; and if he does, his minister – not being a true priest – has no power to forgive sins for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter… I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic Church”

 

[HelenRose]

The Catholic Church has the necessary means for salvation. Everything that you listed. But if I were a Baptist and somone told me that Vatican II said my faith has the “means of salvation” I would not even consider the Catholic Church. Why should I. I would just stay a Baptist.
Yet if someone read to me what was taught **before Vatican II **it would make me take a look at the Catholic faith.

"

For me it worked just the opposite way. I was taught by my fundamental protestant church that if you were not baptised there was no salvation. I did not believe that. In all honesty, even though I loved the church I grew up in, I could not remain where I did not accept the teaching. The Mercy of God brought me home to the Catholic Faith.

 

[stmaria]

In essence, are you saying that you disagree with the encyclical?

JR

I just wish that it would be worded differently.
I would much rather Pope John Paul say that while these communities have a “means of salvation” they do not have the “necessary means for salvation” and that salvation will be very difficult.

By the way,you didn’t address the Bill Clinton issue. Was it proper to give this man Holy Communion?

 

[JReducation]

I just wish that it would be worded differently.
I would much rather Pope John Paul say that while these communities have a “means of salvation” they do not have the “necessary means for salvation” and that salvation will be very difficult.

By the way,you didn’t address the Bill Clinton issue. Was it proper to give this man Holy Communion?

Hi StMaria

Let me get Bill Clinton out of the way first.

I can’t say whether it was appropriate or not. The rule is very clear. The Ordinary makes the judgement call based on whether he believes that it is necessary. I have no idea what criteria the Ordinary used to make the judgement call. All I can say is that it was valid. As long as the person making the judgement call has the authority to do so, it’s a valid act. You and I can disagree with his judgement call, but he has the authority and we do not.

As to how we wish that the Pope had worded the encyclical that’s a whole other matter.

The reason why he worded it that way is because it’s truth.

As long as the Reformaton communities and other faith groups have some Catholic element to them, Christ does use them as a means of salvation. The Pope cannot deny what Christ does. He has to call it as he sees it.

The key is that there is not salvation outside the Church, but as long as some element of the Church is present, then the person or group is part of the Mystical Body. If that person or group were detached from the Mystical Body there would be no traces of the Catholic faith to be found in them.

Our Holy Father, as I said above, inspired by the spirit of St. Dominic and St. Francis who first thought of this many centuries ago and it was forgotten, looks and sees Catholic elements in other faiths. He has to tell the world the truth.

He also tells the world that they have elements of the Catholic faith, but they are also missing elements.

The fulness of communion is to be desired so that one will have all of the elements of truth. It stands to reason that we as Catholics shoud want everyone to have the whole truth.

It stands to reason that all intelligent people would want to be in possession of the whole truth.

Even if you have enough truth so that God can operate and save you, human reason tells you that you should want all the truth.

It’s like having a house. Even though you live with your parents and have a roof over your head and food on the table, you’re not going to starve, but it stands to reason that at some point in your life you would want your own house.

What we’re talking about here is not salvation, because the Holy Spirit revealed to John Paul II that salvation is possible for those who are remotely connected to the Mystical Body. What we’re talking about here is spiritual maturity.

Just as a person aspires to have a home of his own when he becomes an adult, every man and woman should also aspire to know the fullness of truth and be in communion with it. Why settle for part of it when you can have all of it?

This is the goal of ecumenism. To bring all people of faith into the fullness of truth, not because we believe that God is not merciful and won’t save them or that God is impotent and cant’ save them, but because God wants all of his children to know him fully.

I hope this makes some sense. I’m really an expert on Mystical Theology no Ecclesiology. But this is the best that I can do in such a small space and given that I don’t have you in front asking me questions to make me remember what I learned in school.

LOL That was a long time ago. I suddenly feel very old.

JR

 

[Jimsdun]

I believe the problem is not teenagers in Church, that is a strawman. Nobody believes that is wrong, what most object to is the horrid way many Lifeteen Masses degrade into entertainment and disrespect for Jesus.

We should always put Jesus and respect for God as first at Mass, unfortunately some Lifeteen Masses have been focused on entertaining the people instead.

God Bless
Scylla

Some Life Teen parishes have been reduced to entertainment. I don’t blame V2 for this, but partly of the “Spirit of Vatican 2”. Some think that Vatican 2 was a license to allow individual parishes to worship and believe however and whatever they want.

 

[stmaria]

=JReducation;3531904]Hi StMaria

Let me get Bill Clinton out of the way first.

I can’t say whether it was appropriate or not. The rule is very clear. The Ordinary makes the judgement call based on whether he believes that it is necessary

.
I will say flat out that it was a sin for him to receive. At least Cardinal O’Conner had the guts to says so.
White House Press Conference canberra.usembassy.gov/hyper/1998/WF980406/epf101.htm

Q: Mike, a couple things – as you know, Cardinal O’Connor had some very strong things to say yesterday about the President’s taking of communion. In that light, I wanted to ask you three things. One, the Cardinal suggested that no one should take communion who’s not in a state of grace. Did the President feel he was in a state of grace, one? Two, does he regret taking communion? And three, the White House suggested it had contact with officials at the church who thought it appropriate but the pastor has said he was not one of them. Can you give us some names of who said it was okay?

MCCURRY: My understanding when we were there, as I indicated on Friday, I think – Thursday last week – was that our team on the ground indicated that the conference of bishops in South Africa **had a more ecumenical view of the holy eucharist **and had advised members of the traveling party it was appropriate for baptized Christians to share in communion. And the President acted on that guidance.

Q: And on the other two points -

MCCURRY: And that includes the priest, and I thought also the bishop who officiated as well, is my understanding, but we can double check that.

Q: And in hindsight, does the President regret taking communion, and does he feel –

MCCURRY: No, the President was happy to receive the invitation to participate and was glad that he did.

Q: But, Mike, she asked a serious question because what the Cardinal said was that if you’re in a state of grave sin, which seemed to be a reference to the President, that you ought not take communion.

MCCURRY: I think that’s an argumentative question. I think that the President was pleased to receive the invitation from the bishop and thought it was appropriate and took communion"

As to how we wish that the Pope had worded the encyclical that’s a whole other matter. The reason why he worded it that way is because it’s truth.

As long as the Reformaton communities and other faith groups have some Catholic element to them, Christ does use them as a means of salvation. The Pope cannot deny what Christ does. He has to call it as he sees it.

I beleive that you said in another post that this is a new teaching, right?

The key is that there is not salvation outside the Church, but as long as some element of the Church is present, then the person or group is part of the Mystical Body

.

All baptized persons are part of the Mystical Body but I am not sure if that applies to groups. How can the Baptist religion be part of the Mystical Body when much of its doctrine contradicts the dogma of the One True Church?

If that person or group were detached from the Mystical Body there would be no traces of the Catholic faith to be found in them.

So is it fair to say that the Mormons are separated from the Mystical Body?

Our Holy Father, as I said above, inspired by the spirit of St. Dominic and St. Francis who first thought of this many centuries ago and it was forgotten, looks and sees Catholic elements in other faiths. He has to tell the world the truth.

So no previous Pope has ever been inspired to have this view of the means of salvation in other religions?

He also tells the world that they have elements of the Catholic faith, but they are also missing elements

.
What are the missing elements?

The fulness of communion is to be desired so that one will have all of the elements of truth. It stands to reason that we as Catholics shoud want everyone to **have the whole truth. **… it stands to reason that all intelligent people would want to be in possession of the whole truth.
Even if you have enough truth so that God can operate and save you, human reason tells you that you should want all the truth

.
Please define “truth”

What we’re talking about here is not salvation, because the **Holy Spirit revealed **to John Paul II that salvation is possible for those who are remotely connected to the Mystical Body. What we’re talking about here is spiritual maturity.

Huh? Spiritual maturity? Never heard of that.

So you are saying that *Ut unum sint *is ex cathedra?

Just as a person aspires to have a home of his own when he becomes an adult, every man and woman should also aspire to know the **fullness of truth **and be in communion with it. Why settle for part of it when you can have all of it?

There is that word again. " Fullness of** truth"**

This is the goal of ecumenism. To bring all people of faith into the fullness of truth, not because we believe that God is not merciful and won’t save them or that God is impotent and cant’ save them, but because God wants all of his children to know him fully.

Need to read your definition of “truth” before I can respond.
Thanks

 

[elt1956]

Hi StMaria

Let me get Bill Clinton out of the way first.

I can’t say whether it was appropriate or not. The rule is very clear. The Ordinary makes the judgement call based on whether he believes that it is necessary. I have no idea what criteria the Ordinary used to make the judgement call. All I can say is that it was valid. As long as the person making the judgement call has the authority to do so, it’s a valid act. You and I can disagree with his judgement call, but he has the authority and we do not.

As to how we wish that the Pope had worded the encyclical that’s a whole other matter.

The reason why he worded it that way is because it’s truth.

As long as the Reformaton communities and other faith groups have some Catholic element to them, Christ does use them as a means of salvation. The Pope cannot deny what Christ does. He has to call it as he sees it.

The key is that there is not salvation outside the Church, but as long as some element of the Church is present, then the person or group is part of the Mystical Body. If that person or group were detached from the Mystical Body there would be no traces of the Catholic faith to be found in them.

Our Holy Father, as I said above, inspired by the spirit of St. Dominic and St. Francis who first thought of this many centuries ago and it was forgotten, looks and sees Catholic elements in other faiths. He has to tell the world the truth.

He also tells the world that they have elements of the Catholic faith, but they are also missing elements.

The fulness of communion is to be desired so that one will have all of the elements of truth. It stands to reason that we as Catholics shoud want everyone to have the whole truth.

It stands to reason that all intelligent people would want to be in possession of the whole truth.

Even if you have enough truth so that God can operate and save you, human reason tells you that you should want all the truth.

It’s like having a house. Even though you live with your parents and have a roof over your head and food on the table, you’re not going to starve, but it stands to reason that at some point in your life you would want your own house.

What we’re talking about here is not salvation, because the Holy Spirit revealed to John Paul II that salvation is possible for those who are remotely connected to the Mystical Body. What we’re talking about here is spiritual maturity.

Just as a person aspires to have a home of his own when he becomes an adult, every man and woman should also aspire to know the fullness of truth and be in communion with it. Why settle for part of it when you can have all of it?

This is the goal of ecumenism. To bring all people of faith into the fullness of truth, not because we believe that God is not merciful and won’t save them or that God is impotent and cant’ save them, but because God wants all of his children to know him fully.

I hope this makes some sense. I’m really an expert on Mystical Theology no Ecclesiology. But this is the best that I can do in such a small space and given that I don’t have you in front asking me questions to make me remember what I learned in school.

LOL That was a long time ago. I suddenly feel very old.

JR

I think one has to be OLD and experienced in many things to be wise and you are certainly wise JR. I’m not going to comment on the OLD part because I am older than dirt. I think I was even there in the Garden of Eden.

 

[william_menke]

agr4028: I don’t blame everything on Vatican II but I do think that the so called “spirit of Vatican II” is to blame for a lot of problems in the Church right now - even the Pope has said that this false spirit has caused much harm. The Vatican statistics on Mass attendance and the number of Catholics leaving the Church show us that something seriously bad is happening.

I certainly have no agenda - but I can’t ignore the facts I see before my eyes. I believe that we are now on the cusp of the restoration of the Church through Pope Benedict XVI, so I would say that we should worry less about these things we can’t influence, and worry about our own salvation - starting with switching off the TV - because you are right, the majority of stuff on TV is filthy and unholy.

 

[william_menke]

I think Benedict XVI better hurry it along a little…his time is precious for all that needs fixing from VII…

 

[DustinsDad]

…The key is that there is not salvation outside the Church, but as long as some element of the Church is present, then the person or group is part of the Mystical Body. If that person or group were detached from the Mystical Body there would be no traces of the Catholic faith to be found in them.

The following words of Pope Boniface VII, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII demonstrate that your understanding of Pope John Paul II - your understanding of Ut Unum Sint - is in error. You go too far and read too much into the Holy Father’s words - reading them seemingly apart and without the light of Apostolic Tradition to guide you in your understanding. You seem to have a deep love for Pope John Paul II, and that is good. But you must accept them all - all the Vicars of Christ - and not pit one againt the other in matters of faith and morals. In matters of faith and morals - they must be reconciled. Truth cannot contradict Truth…and it all must be accepted.

Sorry this is so much, but this is but a small sampling of the mountain of evidence agaist such positions and statements as you have made above:
This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed…**Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2]…Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
**(Pope Boniface VIII, Unum Sanctam)

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a tertian portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition”…

…If then it be certain that anything is revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine Faith: for what the Apostle St. James judges to be the effect of a moral deliquency, the same is to be said of an erroneous opinion in the matter of faith. “Whosoever shall offend in one point, is become guilty of all” (Ep. James ii., 10). Nay, it applies with greater force to an erroneous opinion. For it can be said with less truth that every law is violated by one who commits a single sin, since it may be that he only virtually despises the majesty of God the Legislator. **But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.
**(Pope Leo XII, Satis Cognitum, cf 9 )
(Continued…)

 

[DustinsDad]

(Continued from above…)

…To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: “The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.” The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that "this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills." For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.

Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors…
(Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, cf 10, 11)

…For Peter in view of his primacy is only Christ’s Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisibly, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth. After His glorious Ascension into Heaven this Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter, too, its visible foundation stone. That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same.

They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed,** that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.
**(Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, cf 40, 41)

That the Church is a body is frequently asserted in the Sacred Scriptures. “Christ,” says the Apostle, “is the Head of the Body of the Church.” If the Church is a body, it must be an unbroken unity, according to those words of Paul: “Though many we are one body in Christ.” But it is not enough that the Body of the Church should be an unbroken unity; it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses as Our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum asserts: "the Church is visible because she is a body. Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely “pneumatological” as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are untied by an invisible bond.
(Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 14)

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. ** It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
**(Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 22)

That’s alot to chew on. But don’t think I post these to contradict Pope John Paul II’s words…rather, I post these to contradict your interpretation of his Pope John Paul II’s words.

By the way - do you accept these words from these Vicars of Christ, just as you accept Pope John Paul II’s?

DustinsDad

 

[rinnie]

If indeed the priest gave Bill Clinton Holy Commumion it was wrong. Period. Now according to Cannon 844.4 if danger of death is present or other grave necessity in the judgement of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops then it is ok to do so. He wasnt in grave necessity or danger of death. So again this is wrong if indeed it did happen. This has been debated, we dont even know if it really happened.

 

[stmaria]

If indeed the priest gave Bill Clinton Holy Commumion it was wrong. Period. Now according to Cannon 844.4 if danger of death is present or other grave necessity in the judgement of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops then it is ok to do so. He wasnt in grave necessity or danger of death. So again this is wrong if indeed it did happen. This has been debated, we dont even know if it really happened.

There is no debate.Of course it happenned. Here is the White House press conference. canberra.usembassy.gov/hyper/1998/WF980406/epf101.htm

Here is a photo traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A056rcClintonCommunion.htm

Here is a New York TImes story query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E7DA1E3AF934A35757C0A96E958260

“President Clinton took Holy Communion during a South African Mass late last month at the invitation of the local priest, White House officials said today in response to criticism that giving Communion to Mr. Clinton, a Baptist, violated Roman Catholic doctrine”

 

[Bob_Rowland]

Pope St.Pius V ruled that anyone who tampered with the Tridentine Rite Mass would inherit the wrath of Sts. Peter and Paul. Could this have anything to do with the chaos that followed in the wake of VCII when the spiritual Tridentine Rite Mass directing praise toward God was replaced by a social Mass that praises the community and now directs praise toward the community as a seeming mutual admiration society? Who thinks about the stipulation of The Vatican Council that the Holy Spirit was not given to introduce new doctrine, only to preserve the doctrines that came from the original deposit of Faith given to the Apotles? Does that mean that seeming new things introduced with VCII do not have the approval of the Holy Spirit? Whatever the cause, can anyone deny that belief in the real presence has plummeted to an all time historic low? Why did Communion under both species begin when either one is perfectly valid? Why should people receive communion twice? Has Communion in the hand allowed familiarity to breed indifference or contempt? I believe Pope Benedict XVI is trying to regain control of the Universal Church that was lost when national organizations of bishops were given autonomy and almost immediately began to ignore Vatican control. Scandal became epidemic after VCII. I do indeed wish that VCII had never happened, but the Magisterium is still my guide and if VCII was wrong the blame is not mine. I can accept the Novus Ordo under those conditions, but the Tridentine Rite (now Extraordinary indeed) will always hold the highest place of honor in my heart. I entered the Catholic Church as an adult in 1949. I sadly remember what preceded VCII with spiritual joy and nostalgia, especially when I contemplate the disrespect of today and now see what we have lost. Blame no longer seems to be a factor in reality. Extra Ecclesiam nulla Salus.

 

[JReducation]

Pope St.Pius V ruled that anyone who tampered with the Tridentine Rite Mass would inherit the wrath of Sts. Peter and Paul.

I just wanted to mention that this statement by Our Holy Father Pius V is not morally binding on his successors.

It is clear that the Holy Father wanted to protect the sacredness of the Liturgy and that’s one of his roles as Peter. However, popes do not bind other popes on matters that are not dogma or infallible moral decrees.

After all the changes were made to the liturgy, even if it was done in a chaotic manner, the Holy Father Paul VI gave it his blessing. He has that authority. Previous popes cannot deny him this.

It is important that we understand that our current Holy Father has not abrogated the Novus Ordo nor created two rites. There is only one Latin rite. The Tridentine is an extraordinary form of that rite. The Novus Ordo is the ordinary form.

What our Holy Father is doing making both forms available. According to Cardinal Sean, OFM Cap, Pope Benedict explained that he was allowing the EF because it had never been abrogated and because it is his hope that it will bring back the SSPX. This comes directly from the Cardinal after a meeting between the Holy Father and the bishops. This is what the Holy Father told the Bishops.

**The Holy Father was very clear that the ordinary form of celebrating the Mass will be the new rite, the Norvus Ordo. But by making the Latin Mass more available, the Holy Father is hoping to convince those disaffected Catholics that it is time for them to return to full union with the Catholic Church.

So the Holy Father’s motivation for this decision is pastoral. He does not want this to be seen as establishing two different Roman Rites, but rather one Roman Rite celebrated with different forms. The Motu Propio is his latest attempt at reconciliation.**

cardinalseansblog.org/?m=200706

This is an excellent blog for anyone who is interested in seeing the Catholic Church ias it should be today.

JR

 

[EasterJoy]

I read countless threads here, bashing Vatican II as the alleged downfall of the Catholic Church.

I also read numerous posts, that articulate quite clearly, that other factors within the Church and society could have impact as well, but these are brushed asided to further the cause of “Bad, Vatican II, Bad…”

What about Humanae Vitae? How many people left the Church over that one? Or, better yet, how many are still in the Church, but ignore the part about NFP/ABC?

What about TV? We aren’t exactly watching Marcus Welby MD, anymore.

What about mass media manipulation? What about technology?

What about prayer being booted out of schools? What about everything being open on Sundays when they all used to be closed?

It hardly seems likely that Vatican II is the root cause of society’s ills, or any “crisis” within the Catholic Church.

There are nine Catholic Churches, run by seven parishes within 35 miles of my home. They are all in good shape, with steady congregations and obvious growth.

Within that radius, I have perpetual adoration, Life Teen, one new church under construction, Mass in english or spanish, Little Rock scripture study, the list goes on and on.

So, is there really a crisis at all? And, if there is one, it seems that trying to lay all the blame at the feet of Vatican II is a tad self-serving for those with a personal agenda.

I think that ignorance of the faith has everything to do with the fact that very little is required of an “educated” child in our country. It was bad even twenty years ago, before video games. How many people between 25 and 35 are able to make change for a $20 or do anything other mathematical operation without a calculator, can recite even one poem from memory, can easily find major foreign countries on a map, or know the dates of more than one or two major world events of the past?

I think the Catholic Church that is visible to us is not called the Church Militant for nothing. We have serious problems. The Church has always had serious problems to contend with. When indulgences were being bought and sold, that was a serious problem. When positions within the heirarchy were sought more often for the secular power than pastoral vocation, that was a serious problem. When little Protestant and Catholic kids taunted and terrorized each other over matters of doctrine that few even understood, that was a serious problem.

I think now we ask not, “What can I do for God?” but rather “What can the Church do for me?” There is a consumer mentality that too often creeps in. I don’t think Vatican II did that.

I think perhaps more of the faithful used to fear God in the wrong sense, while now fewer fear God in the right sense. That could possibly have come from Vatican II, but I don’t know. It is fairly widespread across the world, which makes it a chicken-and-egg question.

We have filled our world with atrocities of war hardly known in earlier ages, and yes, we’ve put them on the news for the family to watch. That has had a coarsening effect. Art can ruin innocence, yes, but when real life ruins your innocence, art that never reflects that in any way can hardly be called art.

We have also, though, made ourselves less innocent of injustice through the media, and that is a good thing. Think of the injustices to which we used to be totally blind. People treated as second-class citizens because of ethnicity, and how many thought a thing of it? So there might have been something of an excess of innocence in the past, too.

There is more gratuitous sex in the media, but there is also an awareness of sexual victimizations that we never used to know existed. Again, losing our innocence has been two-edged sword.

In any event, it doesn’t matter so much what is to blame in the past. What matters is this: what can we do to solve our problems now? Vatican II is not going to be reversed. That cat is out of the bag. The ordinary form of the Mass is not going to go back to Latin any more than it is going back to Greek.

So…what really are our most serious problems, and what can we do about them?

 

[JReducation]

I think that ignorance of the faith has everything to do with the fact that very little is required of an “educated” child in our country. It was bad even twenty years ago, before video games. How many people between 25 and 35 are able to make change for a $20 or do anything other mathematical operation without a calculator, can recite even one poem from memory, can easily find major foreign countries on a map, or know the dates of more than one or two major world events of the past?

I think the Catholic Church that is visible to us is not called the Church Militant for nothing. We have serious problems. The Church has always had serious problems to contend with. When indulgences were being bought and sold, that was a serious problem. When positions within the heirarchy were sought more often for the secular power than pastoral vocation, that was a serious problem. When little Protestant and Catholic kids taunted and terrorized each other over matters of doctrine that few even understood, that was a serious problem.

I think now we ask not, “What can I do for God?” but rather “What can the Church do for me?” There is a consumer mentality that too often creeps in. I don’t think Vatican II did that.

I think perhaps more of the faithful used to fear God in the wrong sense, while now fewer fear God in the right sense. That could possibly have come from Vatican II, but I don’t know. It is fairly widespread across the world, which makes it a chicken-and-egg question.

We have filled our world with atrocities of war hardly known in earlier ages, and yes, we’ve put them on the news for the family to watch. That has had a coarsening effect. Art can ruin innocence, yes, but when real life ruins your innocence, art that never reflects that in any way can hardly be called art.

We have also, though, made ourselves less innocent of injustice through the media, and that is a good thing. Think of the injustices to which we used to be totally blind. People treated as second-class citizens because of ethnicity, and how many thought a thing of it? So there might have been something of an excess of innocence in the past, too.

There is more gratuitous sex in the media, but there is also an awareness of sexual victimizations that we never used to know existed. Again, losing our innocence has been two-edged sword.

In any event, it doesn’t matter so much what is to blame in the past. What matters is this: what can we do to solve our problems now? Vatican II is not going to be reversed. That cat is out of the bag. The ordinary form of the Mass is not going to go back to Latin any more than it is going back to Greek.

So…what really are our most serious problems, and what can we do about them?

This post was awesome.

There’s nothing that can be added to make it better. Congratulations on showing such mature faith.

JR

 

[latinmasslover]

I think that ignorance of the faith has everything to do with the fact that very little is required of an “educated” child in our country. It was bad even twenty years ago, before video games. How many people between 25 and 35 are able to make change for a $20 or do anything other mathematical operation without a calculator, can recite even one poem from memory, can easily find major foreign countries on a map, or know the dates of more than one or two major world events of the past?

You see those bumper stickers “My child is a ---- graduate”? Pretty soon they’ll be making (if they haven’t already) stickers that say “My child graduated.” Sad the way schools are these days, isn’t it. Teachers don’t seem to care if the students learn anything, only that they “pass.” Very sad.

Vatican II is not going to be reversed. That cat is out of the bag. The ordinary form of the Mass is not going to go back to Latin any more than it is going back to Greek.

Well, if Rome decides to enforce Vatican II and any of it’s decisions, the Mass will be in Latin (mostly, anyway).

 

[jmcdzzz]

Teenagers in church… OH THE HUMANITY!

Just realized I posted this in the Traditional Forum where everything besides Latin and chant is considered an abomination.

Actually, from what I have seen in my locale, it’s the young people who want to return to the traditional ways. I talked to a 14 or 15 year-old the other day and asked why he doesn’t like most contemporary Christian music or praise music. He replied, “There’s not enough theology in it!” Amen to that!

 

[latinmasslover]

Actually, from what I have seen in my locale, it’s the young people who want to return to the traditional ways. I talked to a 14 or 15 year-old the other day and asked why he doesn’t like most contemporary Christian music or praise music. He replied, “There’s not enough theology in it!” Amen to that!

“From the mouth of babes Thou hast perfected praise.”

“Let the children come to Me and forbid them not.”

How appropriate for the modern day.