Blaming it all on Vatican II?

  • Thread starter Thread starter agr4028
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dyspepsic said:
JReducation;3553138:
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.
Click to expand...
I was addressing the quote at the top of our post by someone else. Sorry about the confusion.

I disagree that each religious community is going to push their own theologians. Of course they are going to preserve and teach the theology of their founders. Afterall, they have made a vow of obedience to their founders and their successors. But none of the religious communities are going to override the Church’s singularizations of certain saints and doctors. There is a difference. I’m not sure if this is clearer.

Again, sorry for the confusion.

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
 
dyspepsic said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, of course, it would be today’s reactionaries who would scream at him because all the traditionalists who wouldn’t be screaming at him wouldn’t be called reactionaries. It’s my impression that the traditionalists–whom I define as Catholics who at the very least prefer the liturgies that were in place before the council to those that came after–are not a monolith.

Anyway, this is way too much analysis of what really was a poor attempt at humor. My apologies.
 
rinnie said:
You must remember the Trinity is God. You cant separate them. He is all three wrapped up in one.
Click to expand...
We have to be very careful on this point. The Council of Chalcedon and the Council of Nicea infallibly defined once and for all that the second person of the Trinity is truly God and truly man with all that belongs to both natures without mixing or blending. Therefore, the three persons in the Trinity cannot be wrapped into one.

The three persons of the Trinity share the same Divine essence and a truly one God-Head. However, the second person of the Trinity also has a human nature which does not mix with the Divine, but maintains its separate identity and attributes.

In essence, Catholics must believe that God is ONE, but he is three DISTINCT persons that cannot be wrapped together, because Jesus is also human and Jesus’ humanity does not blend with the Trinity or is absorbed into the Trinity.

Jesus’ humanity is co-joined to his Divine nature.

We say this every Sunday at mass when we pray the Nicene Creed. “Jesus is true God from true God” “He was born of the Virgin Mary” Only Jesus has the human nature. For this reason the Greek Church called Jesus the Homousious which has been accepted a infallible truth by Catholics and other Christians.

JR 🙂
 
JReducation said:
We have to be very careful on this point. The Council of Chalcedon and the Council of Nicea infallibly defined once and for all that the second person of the Trinity is truly God and truly man with all that belongs to both natures without mixing or blending. Therefore, the three persons in the Trinity cannot be wrapped into one.

The three persons of the Trinity share the same Divine essence and a truly one God-Head. However, the second person of the Trinity also has a human nature which does not mix with the Divine, but maintains its separate identity and attributes.

In essence, Catholics must believe that God is ONE, but he is three DISTINCT persons that cannot be wrapped together, because Jesus is also human and Jesus’ humanity does not blend with the Trinity or is absorbed into the Trinity.

Jesus’ humanity is co-joined to his Divine nature.

We say this every Sunday at mass when we pray the Nicene Creed. “Jesus is true God from true God” “He was born of the Virgin Mary” Only Jesus has the human nature. For this reason the Greek Church called Jesus the Homousious which has been accepted a infallible truth by Catholics and other Christians.

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
Im just telling you what i was taught. ONE IN BEING WITH THE FATHER, SAME PERSON. FATHER, SON HOLY SPIRIT. ONE BEING, THATS JUST THE WAY I WAS TAUGHT. TO ME GOD IS ONE PERSON, ALL WRAPPED UP IN ONE. (I knows there is a better way to say it but i like to talk down home, if you know what i mean.) God bless
 
CCC Quote The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but ONE God in three persons, the consubsantial trinity. The divine persons do not share the one divinity by themselves but each of them is God whole and entire. unquote. the divine persons are relative to one another because it does NOT divide the divine unity.
 
latinmasslover said:
dyspepsic;3553172:
You can back this up with quotes from others of his day, yes?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure how this box ended up with my name. This is not my statement. This was in Dyspepsic post no. 179.

Please clarify this, so I don’t get quoted for something I didn’t say.

Thanks a million.

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
 
rinnie said:
Im just telling you what i was taught. ONE IN BEING WITH THE FATHER, SAME PERSON. FATHER, SON HOLY SPIRIT. ONE BEING, THATS JUST THE WAY I WAS TAUGHT. TO ME GOD IS ONE PERSON, ALL WRAPPED UP IN ONE. (I knows there is a better way to say it but i like to talk down home, if you know what i mean.) God bless
Click to expand...
Not exactly - He is three persons in one Divine Being.

The Son of God, the Word, is the Second Person of the Trinity - and this Divine Person took on flesh at the Incarnation. This is Jesus, the Divine Person that is both fully human, and fully God.

Ah the mystery of the Hypostatic Union! We could meditate on that for the rest of our lives.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
 
DustinsDad said:
Not exactly - He is three persons in one Divine Being.

The Son of God, the Word, is the Second Person of the Trinity - and this Divine Person took on flesh at the Incarnation. This is Jesus, the Divine Person that is both fully human, and fully God.

Ah the mystery of the Hypostatic Union! We could meditate on that for the rest of our lives.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
Click to expand...
You could meditate on this for the rest of your life? And you would be no further at the end of your life than you were at the beginning.

We haven’t the wherewithal of understanding this mystery, so keep on plugging away.
 
dyspepsic said:
Blame it on the Holy Spirit - He is guiding this Church.
Click to expand...
Since the presumption is that the Council was “hijacked”, then it is impossible that it was the Holy Ghost. It would be blasphemous for you make that suggestion…although I realise you’re not serious.

You can’t even begin to answer the simple question I asked so you resort to this type of nonsense.

SFD
 
SFD said:
Since the presumption is that the Council was “hijacked”, then it is impossible that it was the Holy Ghost. It would be blasphemous for you make that suggestion…although I realise you’re not serious.

You can’t even begin to answer the simple question I asked so you resort to this type of nonsense.

SFD
Click to expand...
“The presumption is that the Council was hijacked”.

Let’s see.

You are a Sedevacantist. So you don’t believe we even have a Pope.

But the rest of the Roman Catholic Church does believe we have a Vicar of Christ on earth. And that Vicar of Christ on earth convocked a General Council, known to all as the Second Vatican Council.

And as practicing Catholics believe the Holy Spirit guides his Church, and was present at this Council. So the Council could not have been hijacked by anybody, since his Spirit was there.

He guided it, and saw to its fulfillment.

Accept it, and stop telling us about your presumptions. You should return to the Roman Catholic Church, so we have no more of these strange Sedevacantist views on this website.
 
I find it edifying that the laity is trying to understand the nature of the Church, her history, the liturgy, her theology and her ministry.

However, I find it frightening that these discussions turn to condescension, offensiveness and attacks as a way of learning. These attitudes have never taught anyone anything.

I find it equally stunning that no one speaks of sanctity, the spiritual journey, the work of the Holy Spirit on the soul, the practice of virtue and living the Gospel.

In the end, you can have all of the theology correctly understood, the perfect form of the liturgy and you’re still where you started if you have not made any progress in the practice of virtue and the spiritual life. Maybe the saints saw something that is missing here. While they corrected things that needed correcting, they paid more attention to the spiritual life and spent more time writing and teaching that.

It’s sad to see so many Christians talking and never mention the spiritual journey and how to embrace the Gospel. It gives an outsider the impression that Catholics are more focussed on their own thoughts and teaching than on the soul.

Maybe we need to change our approach to these dialogues and begin with the soul and what the Council had to say about the soul and about sanctity or how to achieve sanctity. In the end, that’s the goal.

JR 🙂
 
latinmasslover said:
dyspepsic;3553172:
You can back this up with quotes from others of his day, yes?
Click to expand...
JReducation said:
I find it edifying that the laity is trying to understand the nature of the Church, her history, the liturgy, her theology and her ministry.

However, I find it frightening that these discussions turn to condescension, offensiveness and attacks as a way of learning. These attitudes have never taught anyone anything.

I find it equally stunning that no one speaks of sanctity, the spiritual journey, the work of the Holy Spirit on the soul, the practice of virtue and living the Gospel.

In the end, you can have all of the theology correctly understood, the perfect form of the liturgy and you’re still where you started if you have not made any progress in the practice of virtue and the spiritual life. Maybe the saints saw something that is missing here. While they corrected things that needed correcting, they paid more attention to the spiritual life and spent more time writing and teaching that.

It’s sad to see so many Christians talking and never mention the spiritual journey and how to embrace the Gospel. It gives an outsider the impression that Catholics are more focussed on their own thoughts and teaching than on the soul.

Maybe we need to change our approach to these dialogues and begin with the soul and what the Council had to say about the soul and about sanctity or how to achieve sanctity. In the end, that’s the goal.

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
I for one would love to discuss this JR. My idea of Sanctity is that it begins with Love. Love of God for us, our love for others. But it is so hard for us as humans to keep from being judgemental, forgetting sanctity and love, being defensive and offensive. Didn’t Paul also say "If you speak with the tongues of angels and have not love, you are as clashing cymbals…🙂 Peace.
Click to expand...
 
elt1956 said:
latinmasslover;3556213:
I for one would love to discuss this JR. My idea of Sanctity is that it begins with Love. Love of God for us, our love for others. But it is so hard for us as humans to keep from being judgemental, forgetting sanctity and love, being defensive and offensive. Didn’t Paul also say "If you speak with the tongues of angels and have not love, you are as clashing cymbals…🙂 Peace.
Click to expand...
I believe, that given the name of this thread, we should add a question here. Is Vatican II responsible for our sanctity? What, if anything, did Vatican II contribute to our personal sanctification?

There must have been something. I know that for me it was what brought me to the Catholic Church. Prior to that I saw the Catholic Church as living in its own little bubble.

What most impressed me about Vatican II were the bright minds that I didn’t know the Church had. I became interested in some of the great minds involved. I didn’t always agree with them, but I did respect their scholarship.

Woytila, Schillebeeckx, Rahner, Ratzinger, John XXII were very interesting to read. I didn’t agree with everything they said, but I admired their intellect and their methodology. This led me to want to read other Catholic theologians and saints. I finally read Francis of Assisi, Teresa and Catherine and those three did it for me. I was hooked into Catholicism.

Had it not been for Vatican II, I would not have been interested in reading Catholic thinkers.

Lumen Gentium, Gaudium et Spes and Perfectae Caritatis really hit home with me. They really summarized what Catholicism was about.

As a Jew, I saw Vatican II as the Church reaching out not only to Catholics, but to all of us with the same maternal love and concern as he had for her Catholic children.

This inspired me to want to know the saints, which led to the spiritual life and wanting to study Catholic theology. From there the rest was a jet ride to this day.

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
 
🙂
JReducation said:
elt1956;3559018:
I believe, that given the name of this thread, we should add a question here. Is Vatican II responsible for our sanctity? What, if anything, did Vatican II contribute to our personal sanctification?

There must have been something. I know that for me it was what brought me to the Catholic Church. Prior to that I saw the Catholic Church as living in its own little bubble.

What most impressed me about Vatican II were the bright minds that I didn’t know the Church had. I became interested in some of the great minds involved. I didn’t always agree with them, but I did respect their scholarship.

Woytila, Schillebeeckx, Rahner, Ratzinger, John XXII were very interesting to read. I didn’t agree with everything they said, but I admired their intellect and their methodology. This led me to want to read other Catholic theologians and saints. I finally read Francis of Assisi, Teresa and Catherine and those three did it for me. I was hooked into Catholicism.

Had it not been for Vatican II, I would not have been interested in reading Catholic thinkers.

Lumen Gentium
Click to expand...
, Gaudium et Spes and Perfectae Caritatis really hit home with me. They really summarized what Catholicism was about.

As a Jew, I saw Vatican II as the Church reaching out not only to Catholics, but to all of us with the same maternal love and concern as he had for her Catholic children.

This inspired me to want to know the saints, which led to the spiritual life and wanting to study Catholic theology. From there the rest was a jet ride to this day.

JR 🙂
Hello, somehow I goofed my posting. Piouswoman should have been me with the Love thing. 🙂 Peace.
Click to expand...
 
JReducation said:
elt1956;3559018:
I believe, that given the name of this thread, we should add a question here. Is Vatican II responsible for our sanctity? What, if anything, did Vatican II contribute to our personal sanctification?

There must have been something. I know that for me it was what brought me to the Catholic Church. Prior to that I saw the Catholic Church as living in its own little bubble.

What most impressed me about Vatican II were the bright minds that I didn’t know the Church had. I became interested in some of the great minds involved. I didn’t always agree with them, but I did respect their scholarship.

Woytila, Schillebeeckx, Rahner, Ratzinger, John XXII were very interesting to read. I didn’t agree with everything they said, but I admired their intellect and their methodology. This led me to want to read other Catholic theologians and saints. I finally read Francis of Assisi, Teresa and Catherine and those three did it for me. I was hooked into Catholicism.

Had it not been for Vatican II, I would not have been interested in reading Catholic thinkers.

Lumen Gentium
Click to expand...
, Gaudium et Spes and Perfectae Caritatis really hit home with me. They really summarized what Catholicism was about.

As a Jew, I saw Vatican II as the Church reaching out not only to Catholics, but to all of us with the same maternal love and concern as he had for her Catholic children.

This inspired me to want to know the saints, which led to the spiritual life and wanting to study Catholic theology. From there the rest was a jet ride to this day.

JR 🙂

Good grief!! Did you really read Lumen Gentium, Gaudium et Spes and Perfectae Caritatis? In Latin? I don’t think I could understand them in English, or any of the other fifty languages I speak. :rotfl: :rotfl: Just kidding. Peace.
Click to expand...
 
elt1956 said:
Dear LML. Even if you don’t believe in evolution, I think you still would see that time evolves. What was “new/modernist” then is old and accepted today. 🙂
Click to expand...
I would still like him to back up his statement with quotes of the Church against St. Thomas (quotes from his day) accusing him of modernism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top