What other people might interpret is again irrelevant since the Magisterium alone authoritatively provides the authentic interpretation of ecumencial pronouncements. The citation from Nostra Aetate never states we are to cease evangelization of non-Catholics; however, evangelization cannot be utilized as an indirect pretext to violate their intrinsic dignity created Imago Dei.Nostra Aetate Paragraph 5
"5. We cannot truly call on God, the Father of all, if we refuse to treat in a brotherly way any man, created as he is in the image of God. Man’s relation to God the Father and his relation to men his brothers are so linked together that Scripture says: “He who does not love does not know God” (1 John 4:8).
No foundation therefore remains for any theory or practice that leads to discrimination between man and man or people and people, so far as their human dignity and the rights flowing from it are concerned.
The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion. On the contrary, following in the footsteps of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, this sacred synod ardently implores the Christian faithful to “maintain good fellowship among the nations” (1 Peter 2:12), and, if possible, to live for their part in peace with all men,(14) so that they may truly be sons of the Father who is in heaven.(15) "
I am hoping that this last paragraphs means that we should be nice to people in general but people might interpret that as well to say that we should not evangelize people of other religions. The Nation-State should promote Catholicism and barely but politely tolerate other religions. Maybe we could get a tax break for being Catholic?
So we arrive back at square one where the problem seems to be people, and parishes and even dioceses, who misread these documents or worse add their own agenda to what they think they say, and then they apply all that and then we have problems that occur.What other people might interpret is again irrelevant since the Magisterium alone authoritatively provides the authentic interpretation of ecumencial pronouncements. The citation from Nostra Aetate never states we are to cease evangelization of non-Catholics; however, evangelization cannot be utilized as an indirect pretext to violate their intrinsic dignity created Imago Dei.
The paragraph mentioned probably is the most scriptural in its intent and purpose. The call to live in peace and without discrimination stands us out from the non-believers because this is what Jesus wants of us.The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion. On the contrary, following in the footsteps of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, this sacred synod ardently implores the Christian faithful to “maintain good fellowship among the nations” (1 Peter 2:12), and, if possible, to live for their part in peace with all men,(14) so that they may truly be sons of the Father who is in heaven.(15) "
I am hoping that this last paragraphs means that we should be nice to people in general but people might interpret that as well to say that we should not evangelize people of other religions. The Nation-State should promote Catholicism and barely but politely tolerate other religions. Maybe we could get a tax break for being Catholic?
NOTHING in Vatican 2 changes or contradicts the teachings of the Church!So I have been visiting Catholic Forums for a while but now I have decided to join the Forums and start making posts. I go to a Roman Rite Catholic Church for Mass and I am canonically part of the Roman Rite but at home and in my heart I pray the prayers in the Byzantine style. In general I at least pray a reader’s version of the Typika daily since most of the Byzantine Liturgical Hours are quite long if prayed properly. The Typika is the Roman Rite version of the Liturgy of the Word in the OF Mass.
I am a fairly traditional Catholic as well. I have been Catholic now for over 5 years; I converted in college from being a Baptist but I was only Baptist for about a year and before that I didn’t really have any faith in Christ. Over the years I have been struggling with Vatican 2. I almost became Orthodox (Orthodox Church in America) a couple years ago but while they have a great liturgy their politics and administration leave something to be desired and I realized how important the Papacy is and I always believed in the Immaculate Conception. So I returned to the Catholic Church and that is also why I now prefer to worship in the Byzantine Rite among other reasons.
So I now finally get to the point that I wanted to make. I wanted to verify if a certain position I have is considered to be in alignment with the Holy Catholic Church. I feel that this post Vatican 2 age is one of the “four dark ages of the Church.” I define a dark age to be a time period where the Church is almost wiped out. The first period I define is the time of Arianism around the First Nicene Council. Many bishops, clergy, and laypeople did not accept the divinity of Christ and even the Bishop of Alexandria excommunicated St. Athanasius to which he was restored later. The second period is the time of Iconoclasm in the 8th and 9th centuries. The Icons were almost wiped out and it was Rome that saved the day in those times. The third period I say is around the 15th century when some of the Popes and clergy were so corrupted that I just find it amazing that we made it out alive through the Council of Trent.
So now we come to our age and day. There are parts of Vatican 2 that I do not accept and I do not believe the council to be ecumenical. I do not accept ecumenism or religious freedom and while I do accept the validity of the new Roman Mass I do not prefer it. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Way the Truth and the Life and that Christ is necessary for Salvation.
So I want to work to restore the Church to the way things were before Vatican 2. I want to cling to the Pope of Rome through what I consider these dark and turbulent times just like in times past.
Are these beliefs heretical or can a Catholic genuinely feel this way and be in line with the Catholic Church?
If I may respectfully observe, scripture and Church teaching is best read in a spirit of acceptance of, and obedience to, the Holy Spirit, who speaks to us in these readings. If we willfully look for “the exact problems”, you will find problems instead of the fruits of the Holy Spirit. If you find Church teachings you disagree with, the only profitable course of action is to reread, and contemplate and pray. Vatican 2 is very challenging, not just iintellectually, but challenging to the heart and will. There is nothing in it that contradicts previous Church teaching as other posters have said ad nauseum, but it does contradict ingrained attitudes and ways of implementing Church teaching.Did you read my comment about Sacrosanctum Concillium Paragraph 101 earlier in the thread? Yes I have read most of the Vatican 2 council documents. I’m not one of those people who simply complain about the effects of the council just in general. I used to be but I wanted to pin point the exact problems and so I have tried to do some research.
If you think the new Mass is invalid, i,e. transubstantiation doesn’t happen, then you are not in communion with Rome.Not just Vatican II, but also believing that the “new Mass” is heretical… catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=537
Well, they always say that the Mass of Paul VI was a fruit of Vatican II. But does questioning the form of Mass as heretical even though it is a form that the Pope himself celebrate, doesn’t that suggest they are out of communion if they hold to such belief?
I was there before and after Vatican II. Nothing you’ve written is heretical, but you should know a few facts. None of the changes associated with Vatican II were even suggested by Vatican II. The ‘dark period’ afterward was not in any way, shape or form, caused by Vatican II.So I have been visiting Catholic Forums for a while but now I have decided to join the Forums and start making posts. I go to a Roman Rite Catholic Church for Mass and I am canonically part of the Roman Rite but at home and in my heart I pray the prayers in the Byzantine style. In general I at least pray a reader’s version of the Typika daily since most of the Byzantine Liturgical Hours are quite long if prayed properly. The Typika is the Roman Rite version of the Liturgy of the Word in the OF Mass.
I am a fairly traditional Catholic as well. I have been Catholic now for over 5 years; I converted in college from being a Baptist but I was only Baptist for about a year and before that I didn’t really have any faith in Christ. Over the years I have been struggling with Vatican 2. I almost became Orthodox (Orthodox Church in America) a couple years ago but while they have a great liturgy their politics and administration leave something to be desired and I realized how important the Papacy is and I always believed in the Immaculate Conception. So I returned to the Catholic Church and that is also why I now prefer to worship in the Byzantine Rite among other reasons.
So I now finally get to the point that I wanted to make. I wanted to verify if a certain position I have is considered to be in alignment with the Holy Catholic Church. I feel that this post Vatican 2 age is one of the “four dark ages of the Church.” I define a dark age to be a time period where the Church is almost wiped out. The first period I define is the time of Arianism around the First Nicene Council. Many bishops, clergy, and laypeople did not accept the divinity of Christ and even the Bishop of Alexandria excommunicated St. Athanasius to which he was restored later. The second period is the time of Iconoclasm in the 8th and 9th centuries. The Icons were almost wiped out and it was Rome that saved the day in those times. The third period I say is around the 15th century when some of the Popes and clergy were so corrupted that I just find it amazing that we made it out alive through the Council of Trent.
So now we come to our age and day. There are parts of Vatican 2 that I do not accept and I do not believe the council to be ecumenical. I do not accept ecumenism or religious freedom and while I do accept the validity of the new Roman Mass I do not prefer it. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Way the Truth and the Life and that Christ is necessary for Salvation.
So I want to work to restore the Church to the way things were before Vatican 2. I want to cling to the Pope of Rome through what I consider these dark and turbulent times just like in times past.
Are these beliefs heretical or can a Catholic genuinely feel this way and be in line with the Catholic Church?
There is no such thing as a Mass of St. John Chrysostom.If you think the new Mass is invalid, i,e. transubstantiation doesn’t happen, then you are not in communion with Rome.
If you think it’s just a lousy Mass, but a valid, and the TLM is better, then you can still be in full communion. Just like you are free to think the TLM, or the Mass of St. John Chrysostom is a lousy Mass, but you are not free to think they are invalid.
God Bless
Constantine, I hate to ask you but I just have to know. Exactly what is a Orthodox Catholic Christian? I never saw that particular phrase used before and was just wondering.There is no such thing as a Mass of St. John Chrysostom.
Also, would thinking that a form of Liturgy as being “lousy” still qualify you as a good Catholic? It still makes you a bit presumptive and still unwilling to submit to the authority of the Church which to me sounds like an act of schism.
I have heard various positions on rather Vatican 2 is considered to be ecumenical or not. My position is that it is not. Vatican 2 is unlike any other ecumenical council in the past i.e. there is no critical issue facing the life of Church. Also an ecumenical council cannot teach heresy. We cannot teach people that its ok to choose whatever religion you want or that every religion is as good as the next. In much of the second millennium it was considered a major sin to pray with heretics and schismatics and now we are encouraged to that after Vatican 2. We now even have a Bible that was worked on together with Protestants and Catholics (the New American Bible).
At the same time I do not have hatred towards non-Catholics. I believe there are some things we can do with Protestants and non-Catholic religions like helping the poor but when it comes to prayer and worship I feel that there should be some separation.
Hi, Archangelzx,
But, more to the point - we are a Church of sinners - and as such, some members fail to do all that they should - and some other members primarily serve as the Bad Example! If you have not found any church saying Vespers this is still not a reason to doubt the validity of Vatican 2.
Here I am saying just that some people will find novelties in these documents that are not really there, there are other things that the Council Fathers wanted to see implemented that never got implemented. It is almost a pet peeve of mind to see those parishes that strive to be “in the Spirit of Vatican 2” not serve Vespers at least weekly when in fact the Vatican 2 Fathers wanted that.
It is my belief, as well as the general belief of Holy Mother Catholic Church, that a Christian soul should always maintain communion with the Bishop of Rome, for in many ways this is the very source of life itself.I get the impression that you are bound to the Catholic Church - but, not as strongly bound as you would like it to be. This is where you have a responsibility to deepen your faith so that you can deepen your understanding (to paraphrase St. Augustine).
Christ has an excellent leader in Benedict as He had an excellent with John Paul II and the previous Popes. So, it really comes down to a matter of trust. Do you trust Christ to protect His Church so that the Gates of Hell do not prevail, or don’t you? This is a major issue in the life of every believer.
God bless
The Orthodox frequently call their Divine Liturgy, “The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom” or sometimes they use the special “The Liturgy of St. Basil the Great.”. Those Orthodox who use the Latin Mass call it “The Liturgy of St. Gregory the Great.”There is no such thing as a Mass of St. John Chrysostom.
Also, would thinking that a form of Liturgy as being “lousy” still qualify you as a good Catholic? It still makes you a bit presumptive and still unwilling to submit to the authority of the Church which to me sounds like an act of schism.
It is my belief, as well as the general belief of Holy Mother Catholic Church, that a Christian soul should always maintain communion with the Bishop of Rome, for in many ways this is the very source of life itself.
Also even if it comes down to a few souls and the Pope, Christ will protect is Church to the bitter End, that is when Christ returns to save the us.
So then we’d have everyone “converting” for the tax break. Even more nominal Catholics… What a great way to quickly become irrelevant.Nostra Aetate Paragraph 5
Maybe we could get a tax break for being Catholic?
No, that would be Christ himself, and Christ is not bound. He can save anyone he chooses.It is my belief, as well as the general belief of Holy Mother Catholic Church, that a Christian soul should always maintain communion with the Bishop of Rome, for in many ways this is the very source of life itself.
On the contrary, you are submitting to the authority of the Church, acknowledging the validity of the Mass, you are just expressing an aesthetic opinion. We need not submit in matters of taste.Also, would thinking that a form of Liturgy as being “lousy” still qualify you as a good Catholic? It still makes you a bit presumptive and still unwilling to submit to the authority of the Church which to me sounds like an act of schism.