E
edwest2
Guest
The events that occurred were all the same but it did depend on where you lived as far as certain things. It’s all documented.
Peace,
Ed
- Status
Peace,
Ed
P
ProVobis
Guest
But what could be simpler than having liturgy in one language, one Canon, very few options, one-yr cycle of readings, cum populo, fewer liturgical committees, etc.?
Seems like a lot of money was spent to raze the high altars, communion rails, confessionals, balconies, even pews, while translating endlessly, to make liturgy “simpler.”
K
kozlosap
Guest
:thumbsup:exactly Ed!
T
TimothyH
Guest
This is a good point and echo’s what I have said often that it was a return to a more monastic liturgy and spirituality in the Church. Remember that this was also the time of the restoration of the permanent diaconate which had not been in existence for 1000 years.
The truth is that scholastic theology predominated the Church for several centuries, due in no small part to the need to defend the doctrines of the faith against the Protestant reformation. I sometimes wonder if the events of that era were not a deliberate attempt to rebalance monastic and scholastic expressions and approaches to our faith.
-Tim-
-Tim-
E
edwest2
Guest
None of that was even suggested by Vatican II. The Liturgical Reform was explained quite well by Pope Benedict.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
P
ProVobis
Guest
Well, I’m all for monastic life but it seems that there has been only a substantial drop since. At one time many if not most Catholic grammar and high schools, even universities, were taught by monks and nuns but one won’t find too many today. As one poster noted, trying to simplify things only gets you more rules. It seems that St John XXIII had the wisdom to see this and wished no (further) liturgical simplifications. (There had been some complex rubrics, like multiple collects, secrets, and postcommunion prayers being read on the same day among other things.)
I
Irishpol
Guest
Which doctrines do you imagine to have been changed? And where is your authority to challenge Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and St John Paul II in praising Vatican II?
As I had noted earlier, there is little if any chance of convincing you or any other neo-Catholic that the traditional Catholic Church has been subverted by the Modernists. You, and others who blindly follow those Church leaders who are leading so many souls to damnation, will merrily continue along with your belief that whatever the pope and the bishops say is true, is by definition true. That is wrong and a very serious error.
The history of the Church is replete with examples of saintly men leaders who have, not only cautioned, but declared it to be the duty of faithful catholic to resist a pope that is in error. ST Thomas Aquinas has said that we have a “duty” to “publicly” challenge a bishop who is in error. read your catholic history and learn what is required of you.
But you ask about why I question the Council––implying, of course, why I don’t simply accept everything it teaches without question. Let me answer that with a rhetorical question, or one you can answer if you wish. This coming October 2017, many bishops of the the Church will be preparing to join in with the Protestants as they celebrate the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther. Will you be there to join in with that celebration? He was a heretic, you know. Or at least he used to be up until the Council spoke about ecumenism. Dignitatis Humanae tells us that all of these other formerly false religions are no longer heretical, but are no more than “separated brethren”. So you are correct; I do not believe that. I believe there is only one true Church, the Roman Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ, and that we, as Catholics, must encourage all to join that Church. We deceive those who we lead to believe that some other “church” will take them to heaven. In the past the Church taught that Protestants might be saved “in spite” of their false religion; now they teach that they might be saved “because of their false religion.
And take Nostra Aetate. From the time of Christ the Church recognized that with the Crucifixion of Jesus, the earlier covenant that the Lord had with the Jews, the Abrahamic Covenant, was superseded by the “New Covenant”. Did you not know this? Do you not recall being taught that at the very moment of Christ’s death on the cross the “temple veil” was torn “from the top down”. This was the teaching of the Church since the time of Christ. The Church taught that it was God Who tore that veil (hence, from the top down), and we were taught that it represented a breaking of that covenant.
But then came Vatican II. In Nostra Aetate, and the teachings since that time, we are told that the covenant with the Jews is still alive and well. We are told that the Jews no longer have to believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. The Jews are told that they can still achieve salvation without believing in Jesus Christ. Are you not aware of that? If not, then read the documents of the Council that you are defending before you criticize someone who has read them.
There is much more that I could say, but this is not a forum that allows for that with its limited submissions. But I will concede that you have the numbers completely on your side. Most will agree with you because they are told nothing different by Church leaders and they do not take the effort to read traditional publications that review the truth of the never-changing truth of the true Catholic Church. But if you’re young enough to live on for a few more generations, you will be a witness to the following:
Those of my generations (teenagers during the late 40’s and early 50’s) that were blessed with sainted parents and Catholic schooling will generally keep their faith (or at least some confused version of it) as they were taught it early on. The weaker ones (and there are many) have already lost it.
My children’s generation (those in their 40s-60s today) have at best a very weakened faith. Many of them no longer attend Mass and the vast majority have all but given up on confession and belief in the Real Presence.
Their children’s generation (most are in high school and college) have their own multiple versions of Catholicism. Those that still attend Mass do so infrequently, receive Communion without confessing mortal sins, and have no difficulty whatsoever with living together as man and wife outside of marriage. Without question, they see absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality, same-sex marriage and same-sex unions.
And finally, their children will completely abandon the faith. The few of this generation (other than the C&E crowd) that might still look for a Catholic Mass for whatever reason, will find it very difficult to find one because of the scarcity of priests. But even those will be rare
And when you see that all transpire, blame those “dissenters” and “misinterpreters”. *
As I had noted earlier, there is little if any chance of convincing you or any other neo-Catholic that the traditional Catholic Church has been subverted by the Modernists. You, and others who blindly follow those Church leaders who are leading so many souls to damnation, will merrily continue along with your belief that whatever the pope and the bishops say is true, is by definition true. That is wrong and a very serious error.
The history of the Church is replete with examples of saintly men leaders who have, not only cautioned, but declared it to be the duty of faithful catholic to resist a pope that is in error. ST Thomas Aquinas has said that we have a “duty” to “publicly” challenge a bishop who is in error. read your catholic history and learn what is required of you.
But you ask about why I question the Council––implying, of course, why I don’t simply accept everything it teaches without question. Let me answer that with a rhetorical question, or one you can answer if you wish. This coming October 2017, many bishops of the the Church will be preparing to join in with the Protestants as they celebrate the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther. Will you be there to join in with that celebration? He was a heretic, you know. Or at least he used to be up until the Council spoke about ecumenism. Dignitatis Humanae tells us that all of these other formerly false religions are no longer heretical, but are no more than “separated brethren”. So you are correct; I do not believe that. I believe there is only one true Church, the Roman Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ, and that we, as Catholics, must encourage all to join that Church. We deceive those who we lead to believe that some other “church” will take them to heaven. In the past the Church taught that Protestants might be saved “in spite” of their false religion; now they teach that they might be saved “because of their false religion.
And take Nostra Aetate. From the time of Christ the Church recognized that with the Crucifixion of Jesus, the earlier covenant that the Lord had with the Jews, the Abrahamic Covenant, was superseded by the “New Covenant”. Did you not know this? Do you not recall being taught that at the very moment of Christ’s death on the cross the “temple veil” was torn “from the top down”. This was the teaching of the Church since the time of Christ. The Church taught that it was God Who tore that veil (hence, from the top down), and we were taught that it represented a breaking of that covenant.
But then came Vatican II. In Nostra Aetate, and the teachings since that time, we are told that the covenant with the Jews is still alive and well. We are told that the Jews no longer have to believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. The Jews are told that they can still achieve salvation without believing in Jesus Christ. Are you not aware of that? If not, then read the documents of the Council that you are defending before you criticize someone who has read them.
There is much more that I could say, but this is not a forum that allows for that with its limited submissions. But I will concede that you have the numbers completely on your side. Most will agree with you because they are told nothing different by Church leaders and they do not take the effort to read traditional publications that review the truth of the never-changing truth of the true Catholic Church. But if you’re young enough to live on for a few more generations, you will be a witness to the following:
Those of my generations (teenagers during the late 40’s and early 50’s) that were blessed with sainted parents and Catholic schooling will generally keep their faith (or at least some confused version of it) as they were taught it early on. The weaker ones (and there are many) have already lost it.
My children’s generation (those in their 40s-60s today) have at best a very weakened faith. Many of them no longer attend Mass and the vast majority have all but given up on confession and belief in the Real Presence.
Their children’s generation (most are in high school and college) have their own multiple versions of Catholicism. Those that still attend Mass do so infrequently, receive Communion without confessing mortal sins, and have no difficulty whatsoever with living together as man and wife outside of marriage. Without question, they see absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality, same-sex marriage and same-sex unions.
And finally, their children will completely abandon the faith. The few of this generation (other than the C&E crowd) that might still look for a Catholic Mass for whatever reason, will find it very difficult to find one because of the scarcity of priests. But even those will be rare
And when you see that all transpire, blame those “dissenters” and “misinterpreters”. *
I
Irishpol
Guest
TO ABU in response to POST #44
As I had noted earlier, there is little if any chance of convincing you or any other neo-Catholic that the traditional Catholic Church has been subverted by the Modernists. You, and others who blindly follow those Church leaders who are leading so many souls to damnation, will merrily continue along with your belief that whatever the pope and the bishops say is true, is by definition true. That is wrong and a very serious error.
The history of the Church is replete with examples of saintly men leaders who have, not only cautioned, but declared it to be the duty of faithful catholic to resist a pope that is in error. ST Thomas Aquinas has said that we have a “duty” to “publicly” challenge a bishop who is in error. read your catholic history and learn what is required of you.
But you ask about why I question the Council––implying, of course, why I don’t simply accept everything it teaches without question. Let me answer that with a rhetorical question, or one you can answer if you wish. This coming October 2017, many bishops of the the Church will be preparing to join in with the Protestants as they celebrate the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther. Will you be there to join in with that celebration? He was a heretic, you know. Or at least he used to be up until the Council spoke about ecumenism. Dignitatis Humanae tells us that all of these other formerly false religions are no longer heretical, but are no more than “separated brethren”. So you are correct; I do not believe that. I believe there is only one true Church, the Roman Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ, and that we, as Catholics, must encourage all to join that Church. We deceive those who we lead to believe that some other “church” will take them to heaven. In the past the Church taught that Protestants might be saved “in spite” of their false religion; now they teach that they might be saved “because of their false religion.
And take Nostra Aetate. From the time of Christ the Church recognized that with the Crucifixion of Jesus, the earlier covenant that the Lord had with the Jews, the Abrahamic Covenant, was superseded by the “New Covenant”. Did you not know this? Do you not recall being taught that at the very moment of Christ’s death on the cross the “temple veil” was torn “from the top down”. This was the teaching of the Church since the time of Christ. The Church taught that it was God Who tore that veil (hence, from the top down), and we were taught that it represented a breaking of that covenant.
But then came Vatican II. In Nostra Aetate, and the teachings since that time, we are told that the covenant with the Jews is still alive and well. We are told that the Jews no longer have to believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. The Jews are told that they can still achieve salvation without believing in Jesus Christ. Are you not aware of that? If not, then read the documents of the Council that you are defending before you criticize someone who has read them.
There is much more that I could say, but this is not a forum that allows for that with its limited submissions. But I will concede that you have the numbers completely on your side. Most will agree with you because they are told nothing different by Church leaders and they do not take the effort to read traditional publications that review the truth of the never-changing truth of the true Catholic Church. But if you’re young enough to live on for a few more generations, you will be a witness to the following:
Those of my generations (teenagers during the late 40’s and early 50’s) that were blessed with sainted parents and Catholic schooling will generally keep their faith (or at least some confused version of it) as they were taught it early on. The weaker ones (and there are many) have already lost it.
My children’s generation (those in their 40s-60s today) have at best a very weakened faith. Many of them no longer attend Mass and the vast majority have all but given up on confession and belief in the Real Presence.
Their children’s generation (most are in high school and college) have their own multiple versions of Catholicism. Those that still attend Mass do so infrequently, receive Communion without confessing mortal sins, and have no difficulty whatsoever with living together as man and wife outside of marriage. Without question, they see absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality, same-sex marriage and same-sex unions.
And finally, their children will completely abandon the faith. The few of this generation (other than the C&E crowd) that might still look for a Catholic Mass for whatever reason, will find it very difficult to find one because of the scarcity of priests. But even those will be rare
And when you see that all transpire, blame those “dissenters” and “misinterpreters”.
As I had noted earlier, there is little if any chance of convincing you or any other neo-Catholic that the traditional Catholic Church has been subverted by the Modernists. You, and others who blindly follow those Church leaders who are leading so many souls to damnation, will merrily continue along with your belief that whatever the pope and the bishops say is true, is by definition true. That is wrong and a very serious error.
The history of the Church is replete with examples of saintly men leaders who have, not only cautioned, but declared it to be the duty of faithful catholic to resist a pope that is in error. ST Thomas Aquinas has said that we have a “duty” to “publicly” challenge a bishop who is in error. read your catholic history and learn what is required of you.
But you ask about why I question the Council––implying, of course, why I don’t simply accept everything it teaches without question. Let me answer that with a rhetorical question, or one you can answer if you wish. This coming October 2017, many bishops of the the Church will be preparing to join in with the Protestants as they celebrate the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther. Will you be there to join in with that celebration? He was a heretic, you know. Or at least he used to be up until the Council spoke about ecumenism. Dignitatis Humanae tells us that all of these other formerly false religions are no longer heretical, but are no more than “separated brethren”. So you are correct; I do not believe that. I believe there is only one true Church, the Roman Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ, and that we, as Catholics, must encourage all to join that Church. We deceive those who we lead to believe that some other “church” will take them to heaven. In the past the Church taught that Protestants might be saved “in spite” of their false religion; now they teach that they might be saved “because of their false religion.
And take Nostra Aetate. From the time of Christ the Church recognized that with the Crucifixion of Jesus, the earlier covenant that the Lord had with the Jews, the Abrahamic Covenant, was superseded by the “New Covenant”. Did you not know this? Do you not recall being taught that at the very moment of Christ’s death on the cross the “temple veil” was torn “from the top down”. This was the teaching of the Church since the time of Christ. The Church taught that it was God Who tore that veil (hence, from the top down), and we were taught that it represented a breaking of that covenant.
But then came Vatican II. In Nostra Aetate, and the teachings since that time, we are told that the covenant with the Jews is still alive and well. We are told that the Jews no longer have to believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. The Jews are told that they can still achieve salvation without believing in Jesus Christ. Are you not aware of that? If not, then read the documents of the Council that you are defending before you criticize someone who has read them.
There is much more that I could say, but this is not a forum that allows for that with its limited submissions. But I will concede that you have the numbers completely on your side. Most will agree with you because they are told nothing different by Church leaders and they do not take the effort to read traditional publications that review the truth of the never-changing truth of the true Catholic Church. But if you’re young enough to live on for a few more generations, you will be a witness to the following:
Those of my generations (teenagers during the late 40’s and early 50’s) that were blessed with sainted parents and Catholic schooling will generally keep their faith (or at least some confused version of it) as they were taught it early on. The weaker ones (and there are many) have already lost it.
My children’s generation (those in their 40s-60s today) have at best a very weakened faith. Many of them no longer attend Mass and the vast majority have all but given up on confession and belief in the Real Presence.
Their children’s generation (most are in high school and college) have their own multiple versions of Catholicism. Those that still attend Mass do so infrequently, receive Communion without confessing mortal sins, and have no difficulty whatsoever with living together as man and wife outside of marriage. Without question, they see absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality, same-sex marriage and same-sex unions.
And finally, their children will completely abandon the faith. The few of this generation (other than the C&E crowd) that might still look for a Catholic Mass for whatever reason, will find it very difficult to find one because of the scarcity of priests. But even those will be rare
And when you see that all transpire, blame those “dissenters” and “misinterpreters”.
E
edwest2
Guest
I
Irishpol
Guest
REPONSE TO “EDWEST2” at POST #70
Ed––I obviously don’t know how to post properly on this site, so I apologize for my ignorance. Nevertheless, let me attempt to post a repsone to your comment.
I agree with you that the Church will prevail against everything. Christ promised us that and there can never be a doubt that it will ever fail or be destroyed.
But that doesn’t mean for a moment that there will not be priests and bishops––and popes, that will lead many in the wrong direction. There is a long history in the Church of this happening. There were many errors committed by the popes and bishops throughout the years that, unquestionably, caused souls to be lost. The quote often attributed to St John Chrysostom that “the road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops” was not said simply to sound clever. There was great error and behavior afoot at that time and he knew it.
As I have posted earlier, I grew up in a very differently led Catholic Church than the Church we have today. The Church and all of Her dogmatic teachings are unchanging; but the leaders of that Church, the popes and prelates, have focused completely on some other mission than the true mission of the Church, to lead all men to salvation.
As for Pope Benedict’s suggestion that now is the time for the “real Council” to emerge, I have no idea what he would mean by that statement. Read the role that Father Joseph Ratzinger played as a liberal theologian at the time of the Council. His mentor was Karl Rahner and his great friend was Hans Kung. Whatever Pope Benedict may be saying today I would hope would be far different from what he espoused along with the other Modernists of the Council in the 1960’s. If what he is trying to imply is that he now wants to reject his earlier views, fine; but I’m not hearing that.
Most people have not taken the time to read the Council documents, which is understandable since they are quite dense. But far more important than the documents themselves, is the history of what transpired from the time between the death of Pope Pius XII (October 1958) up until the Council work was completed. Much has been written about that period of time, and it paints a very vivid picture of what really happened and just who drove the train, so to speak, within the Church at the time. There are a great many legitimate and brilliant writers who have laid it out, chapter and verse. Reading any of them is time well spent. However, I would suggest one book (as I said there are many), but I would really recommend this one (if you can find it). The book is “Pope John’s Council” by the late Michael Davies. It is incredible. It’s an easy read, it’s objective and it is informative. And as I have said, if you’re lucky you can find it on Amazon. This man is without question acknowledged by everyone, as a true expert on this topic.
Tom
Ed––I obviously don’t know how to post properly on this site, so I apologize for my ignorance. Nevertheless, let me attempt to post a repsone to your comment.
I agree with you that the Church will prevail against everything. Christ promised us that and there can never be a doubt that it will ever fail or be destroyed.
But that doesn’t mean for a moment that there will not be priests and bishops––and popes, that will lead many in the wrong direction. There is a long history in the Church of this happening. There were many errors committed by the popes and bishops throughout the years that, unquestionably, caused souls to be lost. The quote often attributed to St John Chrysostom that “the road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops” was not said simply to sound clever. There was great error and behavior afoot at that time and he knew it.
As I have posted earlier, I grew up in a very differently led Catholic Church than the Church we have today. The Church and all of Her dogmatic teachings are unchanging; but the leaders of that Church, the popes and prelates, have focused completely on some other mission than the true mission of the Church, to lead all men to salvation.
As for Pope Benedict’s suggestion that now is the time for the “real Council” to emerge, I have no idea what he would mean by that statement. Read the role that Father Joseph Ratzinger played as a liberal theologian at the time of the Council. His mentor was Karl Rahner and his great friend was Hans Kung. Whatever Pope Benedict may be saying today I would hope would be far different from what he espoused along with the other Modernists of the Council in the 1960’s. If what he is trying to imply is that he now wants to reject his earlier views, fine; but I’m not hearing that.
Most people have not taken the time to read the Council documents, which is understandable since they are quite dense. But far more important than the documents themselves, is the history of what transpired from the time between the death of Pope Pius XII (October 1958) up until the Council work was completed. Much has been written about that period of time, and it paints a very vivid picture of what really happened and just who drove the train, so to speak, within the Church at the time. There are a great many legitimate and brilliant writers who have laid it out, chapter and verse. Reading any of them is time well spent. However, I would suggest one book (as I said there are many), but I would really recommend this one (if you can find it). The book is “Pope John’s Council” by the late Michael Davies. It is incredible. It’s an easy read, it’s objective and it is informative. And as I have said, if you’re lucky you can find it on Amazon. This man is without question acknowledged by everyone, as a true expert on this topic.
Tom
E
edwest2
Guest
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the book recommendation. When Pope Benedict was still Pope, Hans Kung accused him of trying to return the Church to the Middle Ages. Pope John Paul II revoked Küng’s permission to teach Catholic theology in 1979 after he publicly rejected the dogma of papal infallibility.
That’s just a few examples. It would be a violation of forum rules for me to go further into specifics, but I was there for those who dressed like sheep but were wolves. And not all held positions of power or lasted very long but they did their part. The infiltration is quite real.
Read the following carefully:
ncregister.com/daily-news/vatican-investigation-into-dissenting-nuns-is-more-about-churchs-future-say/
Deception is the devil’s primary weapon and he uses people who very cleverly create the right words to convince those who should know better. In a book about satanic cults, the author confirms that even nuns are susceptible to the lies of the New Age which refer to a false Christ.
I saw the roots forming in the late 1960s. And constant relabeling and repackaging has made all of it seem brand new for each generation while the ingredients remained the same - they were just called different things as time passed.
Peace,
Ed
Thanks for the book recommendation. When Pope Benedict was still Pope, Hans Kung accused him of trying to return the Church to the Middle Ages. Pope John Paul II revoked Küng’s permission to teach Catholic theology in 1979 after he publicly rejected the dogma of papal infallibility.
That’s just a few examples. It would be a violation of forum rules for me to go further into specifics, but I was there for those who dressed like sheep but were wolves. And not all held positions of power or lasted very long but they did their part. The infiltration is quite real.
Read the following carefully:
ncregister.com/daily-news/vatican-investigation-into-dissenting-nuns-is-more-about-churchs-future-say/
Deception is the devil’s primary weapon and he uses people who very cleverly create the right words to convince those who should know better. In a book about satanic cults, the author confirms that even nuns are susceptible to the lies of the New Age which refer to a false Christ.
I saw the roots forming in the late 1960s. And constant relabeling and repackaging has made all of it seem brand new for each generation while the ingredients remained the same - they were just called different things as time passed.
Peace,
Ed
A
Abu
Guest
For one who so slams Vatican II, the lack of knowledge of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI as Cardinal Ratzinger is unforgivable in one who claims fidelity to the Church, but helps to explain the false views.
As Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote as Cardinal Ratzinger in his Memoirs, Milestones, Ignatius 1998.
“Rahner and I lived on two different theological planets…his theology was totally conditioned by the tradition of Suarezian scholasticism and its new reception in the light of German idealism and of Heidegger…a speculative and philosophical theology in which Scripture and the Fathers in the end did not play an important role and in which the historical dimension was really of little significance.” (p128).
In 1969 Fr Ratzinger was appointed to the International Papal Theological Commission, in which he says, “there was considerable tension”, but found much support from such as “Henri de Lubac, Jorge Medina (Chile)”, and the “great figure of Hans Urs von Balthazar….Never again have I found anyone with such a comprehensive theological and humanistic education as Balthazar and de Lubac….” (p143).
“Rahner, on the other hand, for the most part allowed himself to be ‘sworn in’ according to the progressive slogans, and allowed himself as well to be pushed into adventuresome political positions difficult to reconcile with his own transcendental philosophy….Rahner and Feiner, the Swiss ecumenist, finally left the Commission because, in their opinion, it was worthless since the majority of its members was not ready to subscribe to radical theses.” (p143-4).
Although one of the founders of Concilium in 1964, by 1972 Fr Ratzinger had founded *Communio *with other great Catholics because as he said:
“It is not I who have changed but others….I pointed out two prerequisites to my colleagues. The first one; our group must not lapse into sectarianism or arrogance, as if we were the new, true Church, an alternative Magisterium with a monopoly on the truth of Christianity. The second one: discussion had to be conducted with without any individualistic flights forward, in confrontation with the reality of Vatican II with the true letter and the true spirit of the Council, not with an imaginary Vatican II. These prerequisites were increasingly less observed…up to a turning point…around 1973 – when someone began to assert the texts of Vatican II were no longer the point of reference of Catholic theology…. I very soon disengaged myself from the directorate as well as from the contributors’ staff.” The Ratzinger Report, Vittorio Messori, Ignatius 1985, p18-19].
“In 1972 the magazine’s policies had become so manifestly subversive and so much of its contents questionable that Frs von Balthazar, Ratzinger and de Lubac detached themselves and founded the rival international theological quarterly Communio, to which other members of the reform party still loyal to the Holy See, like Frs Louis Bouyer and Rene Laurentin, soon adhered.” [Philip Trower, *Turmoil and Truth, Ignatius Press 2003, p 32].
That is the reality.
A
AnneElizabeth
Guest
I don’t want to interrupt the flow of this topic, and my apologies to the OP and those on this thread but I find it necessary to answer the quoted poster above…Unlike the law in which a person who is dead is no longer protected against libel, Catholics can be guilty of detraction even if the person is dead. Usually you will see these people come out of the woodwork when they are dead because there is no recourse for the attack on their character, Grace Kelly comes to mind. Even if he were a chronic philanderer, I would like for you to point to someone besides Mary and Jesus, who has no sin. I didn’t know that to be Catholic you were sinless.
We must, as believers make assessments. No where did I state that a person has to be sinless, but I do state that all believers are called BY CHRIST to make assessments of the characters of people. Believers exhibit certain character traits- “you will know them by their fruit”.
In no way shape or form am I committing detraction as you speculate, for if a man fornicates, he sins against his own body as Scripture says. The shame he wears on himself. Kennedy’s sexual trysts are quite well documented by many witnesses and they made that knowledge public. If anyone would be detracting, it would be those who claim to know he was a philanderer… IF they were lying. Even his own wife admits to his unfaithfulness. This is not detraction. If a man sins against his own self via sexual sin as Scripture says, he sins against his own body. I have committed no sin of detraction for passing along a tidbit of truth that has been documented as being such. TO suggest otherwise is dangerous. It would be different if there was absolutely no proof of his adulteries and people were passing it along as if it were true… THAT is detraction. Its sin used to make a person look bad in front of others for a reason/motive. If no one could speak of the evil a deceased person has committed then all of history would have to be rewritten.
Why take offense with what I have said? I am doing what Jesus said for us to do. No believer in Christ would ever DARE be so insolent as to mock the holy bond of marriage by fornicating REGULARLY.
The following is an excerpt from a blog that I think best explains further.
(heavensfamily.org/ss/discipleship-teaching-8/dont-be-a-fault-finder )
“”…What exactly did Jesus mean in this warning against judging others?
First, let us consider what He did not mean. He did not mean that we should not be discerning and make fundamental determinations about people’s character by observing their actions. That is quite clear. Directly after this section, Jesus instructed His disciples not to cast their pearls to pigs or give what is holy to dogs (see 7:6). He was obviously speaking figuratively of certain kinds of people, referring to them as pigs and dogs, people who don’t appreciate the value of the holy things, “pearls,” they are being given. They are obviously unsaved people. And obviously, we must judge if people are pigs and dogs if we are to obey this commandment.
Moreover, Jesus shortly told His followers how to judge false teachers, “wolves in sheep’s clothing” (see 7:15), by inspecting their fruit. Clearly, in order to obey Jesus’ instructions we must observe people’s lifestyles and make judgments.
Similarly, Paul told the Corinthian believers:
Code:
I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one (1 Cor. 5:11).The apostle John also told us that we can easily discern who is of God and who is of the devil. By looking at people’s lifestyles, it is obvious who is saved and who is unsaved (see 1 John 3:10)… “”
A man who CHRONICALLY fornicates and commits adultery has NO care whatsoever of that which is Holy unto God. Its an affront to the sacredness of matrimony and to the faculty of sexuality- a gift from God… Key word here is CHRONIC. I never said anything about a believer being sinless… But there is such a thing as mortal sin, and it is an extremely serious offense to God. Being a catholic is not a club you join with benefits nor does God ignore it when you use His Innocent Son’s work on the cross as an excuse to continue in wickedness. Scripture warns they will be cut off.
K
kozlosap
Guest
Tom - are you an adherent to SSPX teachings? Your very first assertion in this post, that Pope Emeritus Benedict is an heretical modernist and part of the group that follows the leaders in Rome like sheep just gave me a little hint! If this is the perspective you are coming from, then please be upfront about it. Is following a group that refuses to accept what the truly elected Popes from the last 40 years teach not being a lemming too?
A
adrift
Guest
Really you don’t see that that this is questioning Kennedy being Catholic because of a sin you believed he committed? You have no idea if all the stories you have heard are true. You do not know if Kennedy went to confession.
You have a misunderstanding of what detraction is. It is detraction even if it is true. Now you might argue that it is common knowledge but how can you know that everyone who reads this knows of his sin? At the very least, it is gossip. It doesn’t matter if it were true or not. Check out the Catechism the 8th Commandment.
I doubt if Jesus told us to gossip and spread the faults of others. It goes against charity. Jesus will be the judge.
You know this how? After all your protest that you are not judging this is definitely a judgment for only God knows the state of a soul if they have care or sorrow for their sin. To put it simply you can condemn the sin (discern) but you cannot condemn the sinner. You aren’t condemning the sin but you are condemning Kennedy for what you believe he did.
Remember that what I called you on was that you challenged that he was a Catholic because you believe he was
I would point out to you that a married man does not fornicate.
F
fred_conty
Guest
It is because they were protected in innocence and weren’t ready for the on-slaught of the drugs, free living, the pill, and a fresh new war.
Ricky Nelson was a shock to me when he turned to rock music. They were headed into wild times and didn’t know it and totally unprepared. I know it sounds too simple, but its true, kids were really good kids and were just hit on their blindside by all of this different behaviour. They wanted to be up to date and just like other kids and so were sucked into it. And being young once myself, it is tough to know what the truth is and what to do since youth has no previous experience to help.
I remember the Beetles hitting our country by Blizkreeg that just took over. And the parents weren’t ready for them either. Then one of the Beetles said something to the effect that they were greater then Jesus Christ. They later tried to explain that one away but it came late and didn’t have the effect they wanted.
Of course Elvis came in the fifties and parents were shocked at his behaviour, tho the teens ate it up. I understand he was a christian man at heart and was kind to those around him. But when he moved on stage, it left little doubt in your mind where he was at. This dosen’t take into consideration his womanizing and materialism that surrounded him. This put major cracks in the doors of acceptable music not to mention behaviour.
Anything that is from God is usually peaceful and calm. The music now had lots of noise. The old nice songs with decent lyics were out, and the new songs with drugs, violence, unrest, were now becoming the thing. However there was a brief period of folk songs which were catchy and enjoyable.
I believe when the Vietnam issue began, it began slowly with the USA sending over some observers and advisors. But then it grew and we could see on the evening TV news actual films of our boys fighting and dying right there in front of us. This went on and on from year to year. It does do something to our innocence to see all that death and destruction. Kids weren’t ready for this. And along with it came the draft which some felt was unjust since the controversy of an unjust war was waging along side of the real war. And the kids in the real war weren’t ready for that either, especially the drugs that were available to them overseas. How could they be prepared when the parents were as innocent as they?
There are other things too that were going on but enough for now to understand how prayer is needed not to just prepare us for the future, but is needed also at the time of conflict. Kids as a rule don’t pray much, and when away from home, most of us know what chance prayer has. So yes, they fell for what society was dishing out.
May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dearly beloved friends,
Cordial greetings and a very good day.
The Sixties was a period of unparalleled upheaval and revolt against convention, it was that “whole generation with a new explanation”. The good and moral traditions that were informed by a wholesome Christian consciousness were shamefully discarded and held up to ridicule as being outmoded and prudish. Moreover, it became fashionable among the ‘in crowd’ to tacitly assume that anything that was old or even had the whiff of conventionalism was probably wrong.
The Christian consciousness that had generally held sway prior to the moral revolution of the sixties was gradually replaced by the moral relativism which continues to plague the Western world today. Certainly, we must never look back to previous generations with rose-tinted spectacles (Ecclesiates 7: 10), but neither must we be blindly sanguine as regards the present age in which our lot is cast. It admits of no serious doubt, dear friends, that we have, since the permissive Sixties, witnessed an unprecedented moral and cultural deterioration as a consequence of the irreligion and moral relativism that became so popular during those turbulent times. Indeed, this is why that whenever a devout man who has “understanding of the times” contrasts more sober and God-fearing times with the present age he is swiftly accused of crying up the past whilst choosing to close his eyes to its less desirable features. That is seldom the case and is usually a straw man erected to discredit his cogent reasoning, for most men will readily acknowledge that all ages have been imperfect in some respects. However, one can say without fear of contradiction, that prior to the Sixties, that decade of decadence, men did generally walk in the good way and did not transgress the boundaries of decency and good taste. With the diminuition of the Christian consciousness and the wholesome influence of a vibrant Catholic witness, came a torrent of wickedness encouraged by the so called ‘enlightened thinking’ of the avante garde. Thus you had the general corsening of manners and a loss of gentlemanly behaviour, the decriminalization and normalization of homosexual vice, the pill which gave men an women licence to fornicate and godless feminism which revolted against the husband’s headship and primacy in marriage and sought to obliterate the God-given distinction between the sexes (it has sadly enjoyed great success - witness women being permitted in the US to fight in combat zones on the frontline, the very ultimate in female degradation). Moreover, whilst birth control certainly existed before the permissive Sixties, its use was accelerated with the advent of the wicked pill. Things have moved on and now we have people arguing the case for ‘transgenderism’ - a denial of a person’s very essence. So called ‘gender identity disorder’ is a mental illness and men and women should be helped to come to recognise their God-given sexuality.
Incontrovertably, dear friends, the Catholic faithful have not remained impervious to the moral and cultural deterioration with which they are daily surrounded. Many of the youth, for example, are very confused today and are forever talking about ‘grey areas’, especially as regards the call to personal sanctity and separation from the godless world in their midst. Many have adopted a hand in hand with the world type of religious practice, which is less concerned than former generations with living up to the arduous requirements of our most holy religion. All manner of worldliness is rationalised by a morbid fear of ‘overscrupulosity’ or of being unduly prissy. However, this sad state of affairs prevails because many Catholic parents who were negatively impacted by the moral decay of the Sixties have passed their progressive thinking on to their children. Moreover, it is undeniable that there has been a woeful neglect of rigorous catechesis coupled with a more trendy and relaxed approach to imparting moral teaching. This is just wrong and does our youth a grave disservice in the long-term. It is imperative that the youth provide a vibrant Christian counter-culture, daring to be different from their contemporaries. Indeed, we must all dare to be different from our contemporaries, for otherwise we will increasingly loose our credibility and cease to be the moral disinfectant that we Catholics ought to be. My fear is that this has already happened as more of our youth opt for a ‘Catholicism Lite’ and virtually become indistinguishable from the pagan worldling’s around them.
Finally, dear friends, in light of our tragic crisis and the moral and cultural deterioration with which we are beset now, we surely ought to earnestly covet the undoubted goodness of former ages such as the 1950’s and lament their passing a great deal more than we are wont to do. It is very fashionable, among liberal Catholics especially, to focus exclusively upon racial and female oppression in any discussion of the past, but this only results in unbalanced and emotive debate and eclipses the very many merits of more God-fearing ages. Without wishing to sound uncharitable I just cannot help but think that this is a ploy to cover up the fact that many modern Catholics have shamefully succumbed to the secular drift of the age and have lowered their standards accordingly.
Let us remember that the Church has influenced the world for good when it has been most unlike the world - please God may it be so again in our own times.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
In Christos
Cordial greetings and a very good day.
The Sixties was a period of unparalleled upheaval and revolt against convention, it was that “whole generation with a new explanation”. The good and moral traditions that were informed by a wholesome Christian consciousness were shamefully discarded and held up to ridicule as being outmoded and prudish. Moreover, it became fashionable among the ‘in crowd’ to tacitly assume that anything that was old or even had the whiff of conventionalism was probably wrong.
The Christian consciousness that had generally held sway prior to the moral revolution of the sixties was gradually replaced by the moral relativism which continues to plague the Western world today. Certainly, we must never look back to previous generations with rose-tinted spectacles (Ecclesiates 7: 10), but neither must we be blindly sanguine as regards the present age in which our lot is cast. It admits of no serious doubt, dear friends, that we have, since the permissive Sixties, witnessed an unprecedented moral and cultural deterioration as a consequence of the irreligion and moral relativism that became so popular during those turbulent times. Indeed, this is why that whenever a devout man who has “understanding of the times” contrasts more sober and God-fearing times with the present age he is swiftly accused of crying up the past whilst choosing to close his eyes to its less desirable features. That is seldom the case and is usually a straw man erected to discredit his cogent reasoning, for most men will readily acknowledge that all ages have been imperfect in some respects. However, one can say without fear of contradiction, that prior to the Sixties, that decade of decadence, men did generally walk in the good way and did not transgress the boundaries of decency and good taste. With the diminuition of the Christian consciousness and the wholesome influence of a vibrant Catholic witness, came a torrent of wickedness encouraged by the so called ‘enlightened thinking’ of the avante garde. Thus you had the general corsening of manners and a loss of gentlemanly behaviour, the decriminalization and normalization of homosexual vice, the pill which gave men an women licence to fornicate and godless feminism which revolted against the husband’s headship and primacy in marriage and sought to obliterate the God-given distinction between the sexes (it has sadly enjoyed great success - witness women being permitted in the US to fight in combat zones on the frontline, the very ultimate in female degradation). Moreover, whilst birth control certainly existed before the permissive Sixties, its use was accelerated with the advent of the wicked pill. Things have moved on and now we have people arguing the case for ‘transgenderism’ - a denial of a person’s very essence. So called ‘gender identity disorder’ is a mental illness and men and women should be helped to come to recognise their God-given sexuality.
Incontrovertably, dear friends, the Catholic faithful have not remained impervious to the moral and cultural deterioration with which they are daily surrounded. Many of the youth, for example, are very confused today and are forever talking about ‘grey areas’, especially as regards the call to personal sanctity and separation from the godless world in their midst. Many have adopted a hand in hand with the world type of religious practice, which is less concerned than former generations with living up to the arduous requirements of our most holy religion. All manner of worldliness is rationalised by a morbid fear of ‘overscrupulosity’ or of being unduly prissy. However, this sad state of affairs prevails because many Catholic parents who were negatively impacted by the moral decay of the Sixties have passed their progressive thinking on to their children. Moreover, it is undeniable that there has been a woeful neglect of rigorous catechesis coupled with a more trendy and relaxed approach to imparting moral teaching. This is just wrong and does our youth a grave disservice in the long-term. It is imperative that the youth provide a vibrant Christian counter-culture, daring to be different from their contemporaries. Indeed, we must all dare to be different from our contemporaries, for otherwise we will increasingly loose our credibility and cease to be the moral disinfectant that we Catholics ought to be. My fear is that this has already happened as more of our youth opt for a ‘Catholicism Lite’ and virtually become indistinguishable from the pagan worldling’s around them.
Finally, dear friends, in light of our tragic crisis and the moral and cultural deterioration with which we are beset now, we surely ought to earnestly covet the undoubted goodness of former ages such as the 1950’s and lament their passing a great deal more than we are wont to do. It is very fashionable, among liberal Catholics especially, to focus exclusively upon racial and female oppression in any discussion of the past, but this only results in unbalanced and emotive debate and eclipses the very many merits of more God-fearing ages. Without wishing to sound uncharitable I just cannot help but think that this is a ploy to cover up the fact that many modern Catholics have shamefully succumbed to the secular drift of the age and have lowered their standards accordingly.
Let us remember that the Church has influenced the world for good when it has been most unlike the world - please God may it be so again in our own times.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
In Christos
A
AnneElizabeth
Guest
I stand by everything I said.
I said “AND”… as in two separate sins. Fornication and adultery. His beloved sin goes way beyond before his marriage.
Its not gossip. Its not gossip to say Hitler ordered the death and torture of many people. Its not gossip to say a known fact. As I said, its DOCUMENTED- about Kennedy. How am I spreading 'the fault of others" when its fact? Is it detraction to say that Hitler was not a Christian because he killed many innocent people after the fact, when its proven? No. By the way, Hitler was supposedly Catholic, or at least raised as one. And as one person put it when asked if Hitler was Catholic, they stated, "No…practicing Catholics don’t commit murder. " Same here in this case. Practicing Catholics don’t commit adultery daily. Doesn’t matter if he goes to confession. God still knows a heart. We are talking MORTAL sin here. Not ‘imperfections’ of soul.
Why do you lessen what Kennedy has done- but I’d assume you’d think it was ok to say Hitler was ‘bad’.? Both are MORTAL sins. Maybe you think one sin is worse than the other? Both are public figures, leaders, i.e. ‘teachers’. We aren’t talking about Mr. Jone’s next door, or the cantor at Mass. It would be detraction yes if Mr. Jones at church committed adultery once in his life and I spread it around when he HAS made amends and repented. That is detraction, because the believer made steps to right his wrong- who is anyone to hold it against him? We all sin, as you had said. But its DIFFERENT when the sin is constant and there is no sign repentance. That man needs to be cast out and 'left to the devil" as St. Paul said. Harsh words! Was St. Paul wrong when he said when there is one among you who is unrepentant with mortal sin to cast him out? …
1 Corinthians 5 ►
New Living Translation
Paul Condemns Spiritual Pride
1I can hardly believe the report about the sexual immorality going on among you—something that even pagans don’t do. I am told that a man in your church is living in sin with his stepmother.a 2You are so proud of yourselves, but you should be mourning in sorrow and shame. And you should remove this man from your fellowship.
3Even though I am not with you in person, I am with you in the Spirit.b And as though I were there, I have already passed judgment on this man 4in the name of the Lord Jesus. You must call a meeting of the church.c I will be present with you in spirit, and so will the power of our Lord Jesus. 5Then you must throw this man out and hand him over to Satan so that his sinful nature will be destroyedd and he himselfe will be saved on the day the Lordf returns.
6Your boasting about this is terrible. Don’t you realize that this sin is like a little yeast that spreads through the whole batch of dough? **7Get rid of the old “yeast” by removing this wicked person from among you. Then you will be like a fresh batch of dough made without yeast, which is what you really are. Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed for us.g 8So let us celebrate the festival, not with the old breadh of wickedness and evil, but with the new breadi of sincerity and truth./U]
9When I wrote to you before, I told you not to associate with people who indulge in sexual sin. 10But I wasn’t talking about unbelievers who indulge in sexual sin, or are greedy, or cheat people, or worship idols. You would have to leave this world to avoid people like that. 11I meant that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a believerj yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or is a drunkard, or cheats people. Don’t even eat with such people.
1**2It isn’t my responsibility to judge outsiders, **/B]but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning. 13God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, “You must remove the evil person from among you.”k
Again, I say, this is off topic and I don’t wish to discuss it anymore here with respect to the OP. If you want, start a new thread, but lets not interrupt this discussion anymore.**
- Status