Iowa bishop blasts 'spirit of Vatican II,' calls it 'a ghost or demon that must be exorcised' [CWN]
- Status
M
manualman
Guest
I thought “Hermenuetic of Rupture” was a B16 sound bite (and a devastatingly accurate one).
Great to hear it repeated though.
Great to hear it repeated though.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
I hope God assigns this bishop to an even bigger diocese or archdiocese!
T
Tigg
Guest
Yes, as our former pastor many many years ago, we can attest to the fact that Bishop Nickless is a marvelous, holy man, and a champion in upholding truth.
R
RosaMystica
Guest
Me to DH: “Can’t you find a job in Sioux City, Iowa?”
T
Tsuwano
Guest
What I understand the Bishop to be saying is that there is no such thing as a “spirit of Vatican II” and that it is this concept or image that is a ghost or demon which must be exorcised. The hermeneutics of rupture the Bishop talks about refers to an image of Church which views the post councilar Church as somehow separate or different from the pre councilar Church. This is a view often held by extreme “traditionalists” within the Church and by those who would ally themselves with The SSPX group. The Bishop is defending the Second Vatican Council as a continuation of Church tradition and calling us to faithfulness to the Council as defined by the Church. As such, he is simply reasserting what the Church has long asserted against those who think the Church has broken with its past and tradition. The Bishop believes the Council marks a continuation of that tradition, not a rupture from it. I agree with him.
P
pnewton
Guest
One thing is certain. The term has been the excuse for horrendous deviations from the normal Catholic liturgy, even if these deviations are the exception. It is best to lay the term to rest and just except the council at face value.
T
Tigg
Guest
I basically agree and yet no Catholic with eyes to see or ears to hear can deny the error that has emanated since this Council. The American Church for certain, is allowing much of this heresy to continue. Did progressives within try to hi-jack the original spirit and intent of the Council? Volumes have been written about this. Vat One taught the meaning of sacred dogmas, which must always be preserved, is that which Holy Mother Church has already determined. It is never permissible to depart from this in the name of a “deeper” understanding. So now I’m confused. Just what does the good bishop mean by the bolded content above? I cannot imagine that this particular bishop would ever deviate from true church teaching.
M
manualman
Guest
Interesting! I think the SSPX types who are guilty of this kind of reasoning are a drop in the bucket compared to the “progressive” catholics who are “hermenuetic of rupture” Vatican II fans. I think this is actually what B16 was referring to when he coined the term, but you are also correct to note that it applies to SSPX types who are essentially only AGREEING with the progressives that the progressive assertions about the Spirit of Vatican II are often not even catholic.
Here in the USA, quite possibly the majority of catholics have opted for this “hermenuetic of rupture” and decided that the “old catholic” teachings on hell, sin, prayer repentance, etc have gone and given way to inclusiveness, community, fellowship, tolerance, non-judgementalism and social justice.
In essence, he is telling these folks that it DOES matter if they commit abortion, use contraceptives, divorce and remarry, leave mortal sins unconfessed, refuse to pray, neglect the sacraments, fail to teach the faith to the ignorant, stand against those who would say wrong is right, etc.
T
Tsuwano
Guest
I also doubt that this particular Bishop would ever knowingly deviate from true Church teaching, but I don’t think he would necessarily agree with some of what your statements imply. I don’t think the Bishop would say that any error within the Church, particularly the American Church, actually emanated from the Council. I don’t think he would agree that “The American Church is allowing heresy to continue.” I don’t think he would agree that any particular group within the Council attempted to hi-jack it or that the original spirit and intent of the Council has been concealed. I don’t think the Bishop would accept the view that adherance to sacred dogma necessarily means unchanging in practice or in understanding of the dogma. I think the Bishop is actually saying that certain changes in practice and in growing understanding of dogma are part of our tradition as Catholics and we should not see those necessary changes as separating us from that tradition.
T
Tsuwano
Guest
You’re right to say that there are those who are called “progressives,” for want of a better term, who also see a discontinuation between the pre councilar Church and the post councilar Church. These folks are just as wrong as, again for want of a better term, the “Traditionalists.” I don’t know what percentage of the American Church these folks make up, but I would bet it is a lot less that you think. I definitely don’t think a majority of Catholics in the U.S. recognize a disunity between the pre councilar Church and the post Councilar Church. They would recognize various differences in the way things are done, but very few would say the Church in the present day is not the same Church as it was in 1950. As I mentioned in a previous post, I think the Iowan Bishop is saying that there is no “Spirit of Vatican II” to speak of. It is a figment born of frustration with various emphemeral change or lack of change in custom and practice on the part of both “Progressives” and “Traditionalists.” It is this view of the Church as two separate entities, one that is traditional and one that is progressive, which must be exorcised. The Church can be both traditional and progressive at one and the same time. After all, the Church should be inclusive and communal. It should share fellowship, be tolerant of fault, charitable in judgement, and desirous of social justice. It should also make believers aware of what it means to be separated from God (hell), how and why we should repent our sins, and what sin actually means in our life. These things are not mutually exclusive in our Church. I think this is what the Bishop is saying.
M
manualman
Guest
Exhibit A for my case: Contraception. The VAST majority of catholics in America use it and don’t think they are sinning. They’ve been sold a false bill of goods based on a misdefinition of “conscience” and a vague appeal to the 'Spirit of Vatican II" that says they don’t have to obey natural/moral law if their own conscience doesn’t agree. This is a major break with the way catholics were prior to Vatican II. They still sinned in droves back then, but a funny thing happened. They KNEW they sinned and didn’t rationalize it away. Today confessionals are empty and comunion lines are full, while the behavior hasn’t improved a bit. It took wholesale adoption of the “hermeneutic of rupture” for that to happen. The bulk of the laity took a great step backwards from sinning and knowing it (which is no achievement to brag about) to sinning and NOT knowing it (which is WORSE!).
When I read the gospels, I see Jesus most impressed with sinners who realize it and want something better. Those who sin and think they don’t he calls ‘white washed tombs.’
P
paperwight
Guest
He did no such thing. The people He called ‘whatewashed tombs’ were the Pharisees, who put on a great show about how holy and observant they were, but didn’t show basic compassion and understanding.
Why this huge preoccupation shown by some Catholics about contraception? Do they really think that this particular aspect of a person’s life is what defines them as a true Catholic? Are we going to be judged solely on that basis?
In the Gospel, when Jesus talks of the Last Judgment. does He mention contraception at all? Do quote me chaper and verse where He does.
E
edwest2
Guest
Sad. Aside from the priest facing the congregants and speaking in English, Vatican II was a continuation. Generally, the word ‘progressive’ refers to a handful of dissidents in and out of the Church that wanted modernism/change. Vatican II is now used like a scapegoat. The real problem was dissidents within and outside of the Church causing real damage when Humani Generis was published in 1968. By 1970, religious were leaving the Church and the Sexual Revolution was beginning to have its deadly effect on Catholic and non-Catholic families everywhere.That was the problem. That is why we are where we are today.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
B
Brendan
Guest
Actually, that is precisely what Christ did. The Pharisees literally thought that they were sinless, because they followed a Law that was not the one God put in place.
But since they were NOT following the true law, they were full of sin.
M
manualman
Guest
- The problem of the pharisees is NOT that they worked hard to be holy. They didn’t. They used legal and semantic trickery to NOT have to sacrifice their own desires and wills to God’s will, but convinced themselves that they really WERE holy. The compassion and understanding is a byproduct of genuine holiness, not the goal itself! Read the gospel accounts of Jesus observing the sinner in the temple versus the Pharisee. The sinner does nothing to display particular “compassion and understanding.” What he DOES display is an awareness of his own sinfulness and it grieves him! THAT impressed Jesus.
- Solely? Of course not. But Judgement isn’t a grading on a curve. We’ll be judged on ALL areas of our lives. If we comprehend God’s will in ANY area of our life and refuse to submit to it, we’re in trouble. You don’t get extra credit somewhere else to pay off the parts of the gospel you find irritating and burdensome! Is God merciful? Absolutely! But he’s also just. Defiance of God has consequences. But the disciples of the “Hermeneutic of Rupture” think Vatican II expunged that part of catholic teaching. Thanks for making my point.
- Do you even realize how protestant a question that is? Talk about a ‘hermeneutic of rupture!’ Christian morality as regards contraception is ancient and consistent. The bible itself never declares itself to be THE entire complete source of revelation. Universal christian teaching for the FIRST 1,900 years of our faith was that contraception (no, it is not a recent invention) is a sin against the commandment against adultery. Again, thanks for being my Exhibit A.
C
crazzeto
Guest
You know, there seems to be a disconnect between subjectline and content. At first I thought he was blasting Vatican II, reading more it seems he’s blasting improper interpetation of it. Based on the second, and apparently true meaning then I agree with him. There are many false assumptions about what Vatican II did which needs to be fleshed out, brought to light and corrected.
T
Tsuwano
Guest
Thank you for clarifying your thoughts for me. I think we’re closer in agreement than I originally thought. I agree that the post Vatican II era saw a greater emphasis on allowing Catholics to follow their conscience in becoming aware of sin. As you say, many folks did not realize that this implied an informed conscience. Many folks today still do not realize this, which is probably why some Catholic politicians feel they can support abortion with the excuse that they cannot legislate “religious” morality. As you mentioned, it is also why some Catholics feel free to use contraceptives as a means of birth control. I believe much of this obeisance to so called freedom of conscience is the result of changes in society and culture in the post war era and is only indirectly connected to the Second Vatican Council. In other words, the Church has always valued “freedom of conscience,” but it insists that the conscience must be informed in order to make moral choices. One major difference between the pre councilar Church and the post councilar Church is that the Church does not wish to compel people to live moral lives by emphasizing sin and creating a fear of hell that essentially frightens people into leading moral lives without understanding, but rather expects the believer to inform himself of what it means to live a moral life and then choose to do so. I believe the Church, in its preaching and life, should, and usually does, emphasize the mercy of God over that of sin against God. Again, the reason is that the believer, having informed his conscience, should already be aware of what it means to offend God. The Church calls upon believers to develope a mature faith that has no need of compulsion, but is chosen in sincere desire to love God.
If Catholics today live lives without informing themselves of the moral law, based in love, then that points to a problem with catechisis and not with the Second Vatican Council itself. I believe you are correct when you say that many Catholics sin without knowing they are sinning. Part of this may be due to the greater emphasis the Church has placed upon God’s mercy, but I think it would be a greater mistake to over emphasize sin in opposition to mercy. Doing so, as I said before, would relieve the believer of his responsibility to inform his conscience and have faith through his knowledge of God, rather than believe through his fear of God. Still, as Flannery O’Connor once observed, we should not expect God to forgive us of our sins simply because we are human. God forgives us because he loves us, but this does not absolve us of our responsibility to love God in return; and loving God means informing our conscience of his law and choosing to follow it.
S
system
Guest
Folks, check out this website www.johnthebaptist.us.It is hosted by a Catholic man.
T
Tsuwano
Guest
I think you’re right. A lot of people upon first reading the sensationalized headline to this story did indeed believe that the Bishop was criticizing the Second Vatican Council. If one reads the Bishop’s letter to his flock more carefully, you discover that this is not his intent and that he actually refers to the Second Vatican Council as one of the great gifts of God to his Church.
- Status