Blaming it all on Vatican II?

[SanJudas]

Far from Gnosticism. These are the teachings of the Fathers of the Church. This was the work of Lactantius entitled The Workmanship of God
JR

Lactantius was hardly a “Father of the Church.” He was a rather minor theologian, born a pagan, who dragged a lot of his “classical” philosophy into his Christian theology. Sometimes that’s acceptable–St. Paul, for example, probably used a mixture of about 25% classical to 75% traditional Jewish, IMhumbleO. I think our friend Lacty possibly had those percentages turned around.
newadvent.org/cathen/08736a.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactantius

At any rate, I’ll side with my grandmother Theodocia (yes, I actually had a grandmother, paternal grandmother, named Theodocia, May She Rest in Peace), who spoke with an angel several times. I mean that she spoke, and the angel spoke, too. I don’t know if the angel had a vocal apparatus or not, but if my grandmother Theodocia said that it spoke, it spoke.
If by “deep mystical theology” you mean Sts. Teresa of Avila or John of the Cross, I’m with you all the way. Some of this modern theology, however, only seems to obfuscate matters for the faithful, in times when directness and clarity are lacking.

 

[EasterJoy]

As to the comment you made in your other post regarding Aquinas, I’m not quite sure what you were trying to say there. Sorry. I’m lost on that one.

It was a poor attempt to be clever…Aquinas got into the ancient philosophers, which was considered to be very dangerous intellectual ground in his time. Sort of the opposite of modernism.

In other words, someone has been pulling the smoke alarm on the theologians and yelling “FIRE!” since there was such a thing.

 

[DustinsDad]

…I was responding to the metaphor of the language of the angels and someone else began to say that angels have a brain with a language centre.

Actually, you brought up “brain with a language center” for the first time in this thread in post #85:

Angels have no brain, therefore they do not have a language centre. Also, if that were the case, the Eastern Christians would be talking into thin air, since neither eastern rite Catholics nor Orthodox have ever used Latin.

Let’s not forget Jews, Muslims and the Reformation Christians. They don’t pray in Latin either.

I guess there are very few people who can communicate with angels.

On the other hand, if angels are multilingual, then there is no issue about language.

You were responding to dyspepsic’s post #84. And in fact, dyspepsic’s tirade of a post #84 was the first place in this thread where “language of the angels” was even mentioned:

The Roman Catholic Church had to turn the Mass around. It was unintelligible, and the people weren’t participating with the priest. They were not exercising their priesthood as the people of God.

This business of the Latin Mass is the shibbileth of the Traditionalists, like followers of Feeney and Lefebre who were excommunicated, and count for nothing. It really has nothing to do with anything.

Arguing that the Mass in Latin was in the 'language of the angels" is such foolishness. Keep repeating it, and maybe someone of us would be convinced.

If you were around in the 1950’s you would be part of the faithful clamoring for intelligible changes in the liturgy.

The Holy Spirit was responsible for these changes. I say, “Thank God”.

Dyspepsic was responding to bkovacs’ post #47, which* did not mention Latin or angels at all*.

So while Dyspepic brought the topic of angels and Latin up all by his onesies - he actually had the gall to taunt bkovacs to “keep repeating it, maybe someone of us would be convinced.” Go figure.

And you, brought up the language center apsect all by your onesies in your response to dyspepsic - the first of any response to this post by the way.

Your recalling of events here is somewhat - well - strange. Bizzare actually.

…I didn’t mean to derail the thread. I was just commenting on the incorrect interpreation of that phrase to justify the use of Latin.

Except in this case, it was the incorrect interpretation of the phrase to justify not using Latin.

That’s all - just keeping the discussion honest here.

DD

 

[latinmasslover]

SemperFidelis:
Don’t waste your time. He always accuses, never backs up the accusations, and provides no support for his own claims of what the Church teaches (because there is none, which he refuses to acknowledge); just spouts anti-Catholic rhetoric he picked up from only God knows where. Debating with him is less fruitful than debating with the walls. Keep your peace and discuss-debate only with those who don’t equate their opinion with Church doctrine. Your words are falling on deaf ears, or rather, blind eyes. Some people *won’t *listen, and Jesus says we are to shake the dust from our sandals in their direction. Just pray for him, but I advise not responding as their really is no point. Even those who do not support “traditionalists” do not back up his posts…what does that say?

 

[latinmasslover]

Too bad I’m not a sedevacantist. The fact that I’ve told you this numerous times and you’ve completely ignored it shows the extent of the thickness of your skull. Why don’t you actually address my argument instead of completely ignoring it, or is it you know you can’t because you make absolutely no sense? Try again, my friend.

I know quite well what it means. I suggest you read this book:

tanbooks.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/15/keywords/catechism/

After you read it, think about which parts apply to yourself.

Yep. It’s obvious to all.

Except for the parts that talk about preserving Latin and Gregorian Chant…

Considering I actually support the pope when it comes to Summorum Pontificum, it seems that this would better apply to you.

Bud, don’t waste your time. dyspepsic always accuses, never backs up the accusations, and provides no support for his own claims of what the Church teaches (because there is none, which he refuses to acknowledge); just spouts anti-Catholic rhetoric he picked up from only God knows where. Debating with him is less fruitful than debating with the walls. Keep your peace and discuss-debate only with those who don’t equate their opinion with Church doctrine. Your words are falling on deaf ears, or rather, blind eyes. Some people *won’t *listen, and Jesus says we are to shake the dust from our sandals in their direction. Just pray for him, but I advise not responding as their really is no point. Even those who do not support “traditionalists” do not back up his posts…what does that say?

 

[DustinsDad]

…Some people *won’t *listen, and Jesus says we are to shake the dust from our sandals in their direction.

It’s hard to do when they come to your front door and won’t take a hint (this is a traditional catholicism sub-forum), yet if we all shook the dust and left, I think the title of the sub-forum would have to be changed.

Perhaps I’m just making excuses - I’ve always been a sucker for feeding trolls…

http://www.russiablog.org/DontFeedtheTrolls.jpg

 

[I_Believe]

Why?

The Divine Mind? Says who? All of this smacks of Gnosticism, to me.

Ya think ?

God is the Omnipotent Source of All. That’s my opinion, and that is about as far as I’ll go in trying to figure Him out.

It’s all I need to know. I pay no mind to the efforts of anyone to dig deeper. Saints, pagans, whoever.

I fear him and I’m ok with that. Far too much time is wasted on trying to define the Supernatural imho. We don’t have a clue, other than what has been revealed by Him.

 

[latinmasslover]

It’s hard to do when they come to your front door and won’t take a hint (this is a traditional catholicism sub-forum), yet if we all shook the dust and left, I think the title of the sub-forum would have to be changed.

Perhaps I’m just making excuses - I’ve always been a sucker for feeding trolls…

http://www.russiablog.org/DontFeedtheTrolls.jpg

LOL, I know what you mean! It’s hard to not respond to some things, but there comes a point when continuing a debate is simply a matter of defending our personal pride, “how dare he say that?! I’ll show him!” and BANG, it begins.

Of course, sometimes we have no choice, in Christian charity, to respond anyway so that others do not fall for lies. Maybe trying to not respond is just an excuse on my part? I just can’t keep forcing myself to think in third grade terms!!! Give me a break! Prayer is soooooooo needed here! Say a couple for me before I lose it and get really uncharitable with a certain someone.

 

[Ron21]

My Fellow catholic brothers and sisters in Christ…let us stop pointing fingers and blaming Vatican 2…Everything happens for a reason under God’s guidance…Afterall the Holy Spirit has guided the church though good times and rough times and we are still here…Since we are all members of the body of Christ and each one of us is responsible for what happens in the Church, Let us continously pray that the Spirit of God may give us strength and wisdom we need to care for the church until the of time…After Jesus tells to continously pray

God Bless you all

 

[rinnie]

You’re not talking about the God-Head, you’re speaking about the second person of the Trinity. The answer to that is yes, Jesus has everything that every human male has. He is fully man in a glorified body. But that does not apply to the God-Head. The God-Head is the Trinity. The Father and the Holy Spirit are not human.

I AM in the OT was not incarnate. Therefore, he was not human.

Is that better?

JR

You must remember the Trinity is God. You cant separate them. He is all three wrapped up in one. I dont look at God as Science. I dont look as a mind and Brain as different. I still feel you must have a brain to function in order to have a mind. But i guess this is a point that you and I could go on for months about. But we still dont agree. But i guess I feel i would be out of my mind if i didnt have a brain, Sorry. They just work together, and if a Angel has a choice just like us, I still feel there must be a brain to help work the mind. Oh well, again i dont see God as a science I guess. God Bless.

 

[elt1956]

God save all here.

I was wondering–where did this idea that the angels have no brain because they do not speak (or vice versa) come from? Everytime the angels appear in Scripture their words are preceded by the phrase, “He/They said…”

Matthew 1,20: “…the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said…”
Luke 1, 28: “And coming to her, he [the angel Gabriel, v. 26] said…”
John 20, 13: “And they [two angels in white, v. 12] said…”
Etc, etc, etc.
Nowhere does it mention metaphysical, telepathic communication.

Come to think of it, God Himself speaks in both the OT and the NT. When He spoke to Moses, the people heard a rumble like thunder, and in Exodus 33, 11 we read, “The Lord use to speak to Moses face to face, as one man speaks to another.”
We are the reflections of God’s own image. Our full range of emotions and ideas mirrors those of God. Why is it unreasonable to assume that our use of speech is also “in the image of God?”

Perhaps like so much else we try to explain with our finite attributes, the use of He, Him is the only way WE can explain what is happening within the spiritual realm. God’s language goes well beyond our human understanding, but humans trying to speak to humans must have a means of making themselves unerstood. Therefore we have the human exchange of language in various forms. Peace.

 

[elt1956]

Why?

The Divine Mind? Says who? All of this smacks of Gnosticism, to me.

And what do the Gnostics say about this??

 

[elt1956]

Why?

The Divine Mind? Says who? All of this smacks of Gnosticism, to me.

You must remember the Trinity is God. You cant separate them. He is all three wrapped up in one. I dont look at God as Science. I dont look as a mind and Brain as different. I still feel you must have a brain to function in order to have a mind. But i guess this is a point that you and I could go on for months about. But we still dont agree. But i guess I feel i would be out of my mind if i didnt have a brain, Sorry. They just work together, and if a Angel has a choice just like us, I still feel there must be a brain to help work the mind. Oh well, again i dont see God as a science I guess. God Bless.

Maybe this makes sense and maybe it doesn’t, just thinking with my brain. If God KNOWS everthing past present and future, why does He need a brain to assimilate knowledge? Another mystery. Peace

 

[Freshman88]

I don’t blame Vatican II, I blame the liberals, heretics, and modernists who wrongfully implemented the council. I blame the so called ‘spirit of Vatican II’, not the council itself and I continue to blame those who are part of this mindset.

 

[agr4028]

I don’t get it. I grew up when the Mass was in Latin. And I have to be honest, it was above all of us as laity. The appeal we received from Preachers was that this was a proof of the unity of the Church, and we went out and purchased missals to follow along.

Faith comes by hearing - so if I can hear, a fortiori, I can believe better than someone kneeling there hearing only sound.

If I sit on a bus and my neighbors are speaking Spanish, I am not partaking of what is being said.

The TLM serves noone’s purpose as far as I am concerned. The ‘participation’ is absolutely minimal. No Amen from my side.

And the reason: the TLM is not really that big a deal. It is change that is important. Father Feeney and Bishop Lefebreve live on fighting change, resisting the teaching Magisterium of the Church. The TLM is just an excuse for Traditionalism. They are its heros, excommunicated as they were.

:tiphat:

 

[JReducation]

Lactantius was hardly a “Father of the Church.” He was a rather minor theologian, born a pagan, who dragged a lot of his “classical” philosophy into his Christian theology. Sometimes that’s acceptable–St. Paul, for example, probably used a mixture of about 25% classical to 75% traditional Jewish, IMhumbleO. I think our friend Lacty possibly had those percentages turned around.
newadvent.org/cathen/08736a.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactantius

At any rate, I’ll side with my grandmother Theodocia (yes, I actually had a grandmother, paternal grandmother, named Theodocia, May She Rest in Peace), who spoke with an angel several times. I mean that she spoke, and the angel spoke, too. I don’t know if the angel had a vocal apparatus or not, but if my grandmother Theodocia said that it spoke, it spoke.
If by “deep mystical theology” you mean Sts. Teresa of Avila or John of the Cross, I’m with you all the way. Some of this modern theology, however, only seems to obfuscate matters for the faithful, in times when directness and clarity are lacking.

You are right on several counts. Lactantius was not a major player among the Fathers of the Church. That being said, the Church does preserve his writings among the Fathers of the Church and has officially given him this Title. Check the Catholic encyclopedia.

You mention that Grandma’ Tehodocia spoke with angels. This is also possible. This can be a mystical experience that grandma’ Teodocia had. As to whether the Angels of an actual organ to speak, they do not, but it’s not necessary. Just as they spoke to our anscestors they could also speak to Grandma’ Theodocia. We should never put God’s messengers into a box and say that they have to do things the human way. In fact that’s what makes them angels. They have never been human. They are free of everything that limits humans.

When Mystical Theology writes about speaking with God, angles and saints (such as Joan of Arc), it’s not talking about using human communication. It’s referring to be in touch with the supernatural in such a way that we actually understand.

I’m not sure which modern Mystical Theologians or theology you claim to be deliberately obscuring and confusing people. I studied Mystical Theology from grad school through PhD and there is nothing that I can point to that was obscuring or confusing. It was a very difficult branch of theology and took a long time to complete the program, but it was very enlightening.

There are many who comment on Mysticism and have little understanding of it. Among these people, you will find some who can really penetrate it, with just a small dose of understanding. Then there are those who get it all wrong, but with no intention to do harm. They simply make mistakes.

One person who is not a Mystical Theologian, but a Systematic Theologian and clinical psychologist is Fr. Benedict Groeschel. However, he is one of those people who can penetrate the depths of Mystical Theolgoy and Mysticism beginning with a small piece of knowlege and he develops it quite well. If you don’t do so already, you may want to tune in to him or read some of his books. Another friar who is a very good Modern Mystical Theologian is Fr. Apostolic, CFR and Fr. Dubey. All have books at amazon.com and are on EWTN weekly.

By the way Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross are cetainly among the masters of Mystical Theology, but don’t forget the two other Masters, Catherine of Siena and Therese of Liseux. It was a great blessing when the Church lifted the ban on women being Doctors of the Church. So many women are such profound theologians and have much to teach the Church about the spiritual life.

I wouldn’t be surprised if in another 100 years Blessed Mother Teresa is named a Doctor of the Church, for she certainly taught much to the Church about living the Gospel.

Since this is not the topic of this thread, I would be happy to dialogue with you via PM, if you like. This way people can focus on the question of the thread.

You may also want to check out this thread on the saints and the mystics.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3551333#post3551333

JR

 

[dyspepsic]

It was a poor attempt to be clever…Aquinas got into the ancient philosophers, which was considered to be very dangerous intellectual ground in his time. Sort of the opposite of modernism.

QUOTE]

I doubt that.

I think that what Thomas Aquinas did with Chrisitanizing pagan philosophers would have been considered Modernism by todays Traditionalists.

Whether he was developing theology, or helping it evolve, today’s reactionaries would be screaming at him. I don’t think Aquinas is a patron of the Traditionalist reactionaries.

 

[JReducation]

EasterJoy;3551801:

It was a poor attempt to be clever…Aquinas got into the ancient philosophers, which was considered to be very dangerous intellectual ground in his time. Sort of the opposite of modernism.

QUOTE]

I doubt that.

I think that what Thomas Aquinas did with Chrisitanizing pagan philosophers would have been considered Modernism by todays Traditionalists.

Whether he was developing theology, or helping it evolve, today’s reactionaries would be screaming at him. I don’t think Aquinas is a patron of the Traditionalist reactionaries.

I would be very careful about what I publically say about Aquinas. He is the ANGELIC DOCTOR of the Catholic Church.

While there were some errors in his writings, they related to scientific questions, not to theology or philosophy.

He is still one of the official resources from which the Catholic Church takes its Systematic Theology.

Some bishops and religious superiors would not be happy if they heard a Catholc bad-mouth Aquinas or any of the other Doctors.

There are three who hold a special place in the hierarchy of Chruch Doctors and saints; Aquinas the Angelic Doctor, Bonaventure the Seraphic Doctor and Francis of Assis the Mirror of Perfection, all titles are official, given by the Magisterium.

JR

 

[catharina]

dyspepsic;3553062:

I would be very careful about what I publically say about Aquinas. He is the ANGELIC DOCTOR of the Catholic Church.

While there were some errors in his writings, they related to scientific questions, not to theology or philosophy.

He is still one of the official resources from which the Catholic Church takes its Systematic Theology.

Some bishops and religious superiors would not be happy if they heard a Catholc bad-mouth Aquinas or any of the other Doctors.

There are three who hold a special place in the hierarchy of Chruch Doctors and saints; Aquinas the Angelic Doctor, Bonaventure the Seraphic Doctor and Francis of Assis the Mirror of Perfection, all titles are official, given by the Magisterium.

JR

Bravo, JR. Excellent points.

 

[dyspepsic]

dyspepsic;3553062:

Some bishops and religious superiors would not be happy if they heard a Catholc bad-mouth Aquinas or any of the other Doctors.

There are three who hold a special place in the hierarchy of Chruch Doctors and saints; Aquinas the Angelic Doctor, Bonaventure the Seraphic Doctor and Francis of Assis the Mirror of Perfection, all titles are official, given by the Magisterium.

JR

You misunderstand what I have to say.

Firstly, if you are a Jesuit or a Redemptorist or a Benedictine, you push your own theologians. Thomas was a Dominican, which is of no importance to the rest of us who are not.

I recognize Thomas as the Angelic Doctor, and I have studied under his Philosophy and Theology, although in Theology the Church put forward many theological opinions.

My point was not to attack Thomas, but to say he was very forward in his thinking and his writings. Traditionalists of his day would have objected to him as a ‘modernist’.

Any one who has an opinion differing from the standard can be called a ‘modernist’. I object to the use of the term, since it is the ‘heresy of heresies’, encompassing all of them.