misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II

[edwest2]

Given everything that has happened in the Church since Vatican II, I most certainly wouldn’t mind finding a Catholic Church where Traditional Mass was said.

There are however; none in my city. And now the Archbishop is talking about lay-led services where the ongoing diminishing of the priesthood is an evident reality in many areas across Canada.

One should never take having a priest for granted. And not being able to attend a Catholic Church where the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is no longer a reality.

Increasingly; Some 45 years later, I’m having a difficult time seeing all the vast great fruits of Vatican II.

harvestingthefruit.com/

Peace,
Ed

 

[Judge_Mental]

They have made contributions to the Christian world, which Catholics have benefit from. To begin with, many of the complaints of Luther were very legitimate and the Church acknowledges this and did correc them. This was the Counter Reformation. That’s one contribution right there.

Luther’ principal contribution to the Christian world was to start the rending of the body of Christ. The consequences were terrible. Even the idea of selling indulgences has value, if the money offered is charitable and painful e.g. the Widow’s Mite. Was it abused? Yes. Was that reason to tear the Church apart? No. But it was very handy for greedy princes he did it.

"Thesis 86, which asks: “Why does the pope, whose wealth today is greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build the basilica of St. Peter with the money of poor believers rather than with his own money?”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ninety-Five_Theses

Protestantism begins in a fatal error, which can lead to your losing your soul to Hell: picking and choosing which doctrines you believe. It should be avoided like a plague.

 

[guanophore]

Luther’ principal contribution to the Christian world was to start the rending of the body of Christ.

No, I dont’ think so. This is too much credit to give Luther. The rending began when Catholic authorities, acting like wolves among the sheep, gave into their greed for money and power, and took advantage of the flock. Had they not done this (for centuries) then the climate would not have existed for Luther’s tiny pebble to start the avalanche that did rend the Body. He had a part in it, but he was only reacting to corruption that already existed.

The consequences were terrible. Even the idea of selling indulgences has value, if the money offered is charitable and painful e.g. the Widow’s Mite. Was it abused? Yes. Was that reason to tear the Church apart? No. But it was very handy for greedy princes he did it.

No, the idea of “selling indulgences” has no value. Theologically, it is impossible to “sell” an indulgence. However, you are correct that money offered in charity does have value. The corruption of using this in any way to make it even appear that grace is for sale is a gross misrepresentation. That is why it was addressed as such in the Council of Trent.

You are also right that Luther’s work was commandeered by the princes as a way to get political power away from Rome. Not just German princes either.

However, the fault came when the Church conflated itself in secular politics. This predated Luther by almost 1000 years, so that can’t be blamed on him either. It is also why priests are not permitted to serve in secular politics today.

"Thesis 86, which asks: “Why does the pope, whose wealth today is greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build the basilica of St. Peter with the money of poor believers rather than with his own money?”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ninety-Five_Theses

Protestantism begins in a fatal error, which can lead to your losing your soul to Hell: picking and choosing which doctrines you believe. It should be avoided like a plague.

It is a just question. The Pope was fleecing the poor to build St. Peters.

 

[JReducation]

Luther’ principal contribution to the Christian world was to start the rending of the body of Christ. The consequences were terrible. Even the idea of selling indulgences has value, if the money offered is charitable and painful e.g. the Widow’s Mite. Was it abused? Yes. Was that reason to tear the Church apart? No. But it was very handy for greedy princes he did it.

"Thesis 86, which asks: “Why does the pope, whose wealth today is greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build the basilica of St. Peter with the money of poor believers rather than with his own money?”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ninety-Five_Theses

Protestantism begins in a fatal error, which can lead to your losing your soul to Hell: picking and choosing which doctrines you believe. It should be avoided like a plague.

It’s not so simple. I’m not canonizing Luther. The question was whether or not Protestantism has made any contributions to Christianity. The answer, acknowledged by the Church herself, is “Yes.” Luther’s rants contained some truths that had to be addressed. Forcing the arm of Rome to face these abuses was a contribution. The way that he went about it was less than prudent. He was bull-headed and closed to dialogue. But the truth is that the pope’s emissaries to Luther were condescending and provocative. It’s just the way that people behaved in those days. Diplomacy and patience seemed to be foreign words. Everyone was too ready for a fight. Some of us still continue in this frame of mind, even though history has proven how disastrous such a mindset can be.

Does that mean that everything Luther said and did was right? No. It does not. Did he make a contribution? Yes. He made Rome stop and reign in many bishops and abbots who were very abussive, even commiting simony. Donating money to the poor is not a problem. There was more going on that needed to be addressed.

There were other contributions that they made to the Christian world for which it is fair to give them credit.

I’ll give you a simple one. If it were not for Protestants, Roman Catholics in America would still be standing during the entire mass. Have you ever noticed that the old European churches only have a few rows of benches and 2/3 of the church is bare? The custom was that the rich would purchase a seat. Those who could not do so, would simply stand during the entire liturgy.

Because Protestant services are very long on scripture readings and preaching, they introduced pews into their churches. The first American parishes copied the custom. It’s a minor contributioin, but it’s is a contribution.

But seriously, they have made some important contributions to Christianity, as I said before, especially in the areas of higher education, healthcare, exegesis, and politics. American philosophy owes a great deal to Protestantism. Unfortunately, we’ve distorted that too and the Constitution is no longer understood correctly.

During the French Revolution, the rise of Nazi Germany, and the rise of Communism in Western Europe many of them suffered a great deal for their faith, alongside Catholics, Orthodox and Jews. Defense of the Faith does not require that we deny the good that others have done. I can disagree with a Protestant and acknowledge the good that he has done.

As a friar who works in respect life ministry, I’m very grateful to the Protestants who fund pregnancy centers all over the USA. There are only a handful of Catholic funded pregnancy centers. When it’s time to pray outside of an abortuary, they are right there, next to us Catholics, every Saturday morning. As Popes John Paul and Benedict have said, the greatest evil facing modern man is abortion. There are many good Protestant people who stand along with us in defense of the dignity of life from conception to natural death.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

I can disagree with a Protestant and acknowledge the good that he has done.

You can probably include classical music as well. Funny that Vatican II wrote on the high esteem of the pipe organ, and yet today Protestants have the world’s better organs and organ players.

 

[Judge_Mental]

My concern is that nowadays ecumenism is giving Catholics the idea that Protestantism has equal value to Catholicism; it’s promoting indifferentism. Whereas we see Protestant denominations having homosexual and female clergy, for example. I believe I’ve seen newspaper reports of joint services in a small parish I know. It’s not good that the faithful see a woman vicar and think that’s Ok.

I think, I hope, that bishops are getting the idea that the jig is up. Their own flocks are much more ignorant of the faith than previously, whereas Protestantism seems to be in a slow meltdown. They need to state the hard points of our faith from the pulpit regularly and not worry so much about trying to glad-handle Protestants in Protestant-dominated countries.

Our Pope has cut through the fumbling with Anglicanorum Coetibus, thank God.

When you call the sheep and they don’t come and you go out after them and they scatter, while the wolves are circling the ones in your fold, it’s time to save your own.

 

[Thomas_Aquinas_1]

My concern is that nowadays ecumenism is giving Catholics the idea that Protestantism has equal value to Catholicism; it’s promoting indifferentism.

When you call the sheep and they don’t come and you go out after them and they scatter, while the wolves are circling the ones in your fold, it’s time to save your own.

Excellent points. Indifferentism, which is a sin agains the first commandment, is a great temptatin in our day. Do we have the disgust and hatred of heresy that we should? Most of us don’t. We find ourselves surrounded by nice heretics and end by believing heresy itself is not that bad. I think we should take the following words of the late great Fr. Faber to heart.

Fr. Faber: “If we hated sin as we ought to hate it, purely, keenly, manfully, we should do more penance, we should inflict more self-punishment, we should sorrow for our sins more abidingly. Then, again, the crowning disloyalty to God is heresy. It is the sin of sins, the very loathsomest of things which God looks down upon in this malignant world. Yet how little do we understand of its excessive hatefulness! It is the polluting of God’s truth, which is the worst of all impurities. Yet how light we make of it! We look at it, and are calm. We touch it and do not shudder. We mix with it, and have no fear. We see it touch holy things, and we have no sense of sacrilege. We breathe its odor, and show no signs of detestation or disgust. Some of us affect its friendship; and some even extenuate its guilt. We do not love God enough to be angry for His glory. We do not love men enough to be charitably truthful for their souls. Having lost the touch, the taste, the sight, and all the senses of heavenly-mindedness, we can dwell amidst this odious plague, in imperturbable tranquillity, reconciled to its foulness, not without some boastful professions of liberal admiration, perhaps even with a solicitous show of tolerant sympathies. Why are we so far below the old saints, and even the modern apostles of these latter times, in the abundance of our conversations? Because we have not the antique sternness? We want the old Church-spirit, the old ecclesiastical genius. Our charity is untruthful, because it is not severe; and it is unpersuasive, because it is untruthful. We lack devotion to truth as truth, as God’s truth. Our zeal for souls is puny, because we have no zeal for God’s honor. We act as if God were complimented by conversions, instead of trembling souls rescued by a stretch of mercy. We tell men half the truth, the half that best suits our own pusillanimity and their conceit; and then we wonder that so few are converted, and that of those few so many apostatize. We are so weak as to be surprised that our half-truth has not succeeded so well as God’s whole truth. Where there is no hatred of heresy, there is no holiness. A man, who might be an apostle, becomes a fester in the Church for the want of this righteous indignation.”

 

[ProVobis]

My concern is that nowadays ecumenism is giving Catholics the idea that Protestantism has equal value to Catholicism; it’s promoting indifferentism.

Most valid point and it’s my deep concern as well. Aside from doctrine, Catholics still ought to be looking for their own identity, at least more than what’s written on a sign outside their Church. When both take communion the same way, worship in a national language (if they worship at all), eat meat on Friday, practice ABC, sing the same music, etc. how can one know which is which? We’re all supposed to be “brothers” but that doesn’t mean we give up on our traditions, philosophy, and beliefs going back through all the councils and papal encyclicals. There’s got to be some synergy and integrity of the faith there somewhere; else what good are the Vatican II’s documents on ecumenism if our beliefs are compromised?

 

[centurionguard]

Accepting and liking are not the same thing. We accept what the Church allows. We do not have to like everything and we do not have to engage everything. The Church does not impose these things that you mentioned.

We accept what the Church allows.

In this accepting what the Church allows; should it not come exclusively from the power invested in the Pope and his Magisterium?

The individual man or woman of faith, must always keep in mind that the Church can do both, bind and unbind and that it’s not always going to be popular

Again; this binding and unbinding should come exclusively from the Pope.

 

[CradleCath]

The quote I provided was from the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, a 20th century catechism

. And what Pius X wrote did not begin at Trent. It is what the Church has always taught.

**Catechism of Pius X: **

14 Q. Who are heretics?

A. Heretics are those of the baptised who obstinately refuse to believe some truth revealed by God and taught as an article of faith by the Catholic Church; for example, the Arians, the Nestorians and the various sects of Protestants.

But we don’t need a catechism to tell us that Protestants are heretics. It is common sense. What is a heretic? A heretic is a person who denies a dogma of the faith. Protestant sects deny many dogmas of the faith, which makes them heretics. If Protestants are not heretics, then there has never been any heretical group.

Regarding ecclesiology, the following 20th century Catechism teaches us who belongs to the Church.

**The Catechism of Pius X: **

9 Q. State distinctly what is necessary to be a member of the Church?

A. To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptised, to believe and profess the teaching of Jesus Christ, to participate in the same Sacraments, and to acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church. …

I share your concern about all of these “definitions of doctrine”. Many times they are more than “definitions” & disagree with the tenets of the faith that we have held since the time Christ walked the earth. I DO, however, believe in the Baptisms of Blood & Desire, though I think that they would be very difficult to achieve…I believe that those who have never had the opportunity to be Baptized by water, can be saved. My usual example is the American Indians, who…due to the inherent knowledge “written on the hearts of man”…knew & worshipped their God. They called Him the Great White Father, but knew nothing about His son or Baptism.

“The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The “baptism of the Holy Ghost” is a term employed in the** third century** by the anonymous author of the book “De Rebaptismate”. The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): “He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him.” And again: “If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.” Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the** Council of Trent**. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice “except by the washing of regeneration or its desire” (voto). The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.”

I’ve been reading your messages & find them well-formed & Catholic in content. I am, however, interested in your opinion on the alternate forms of Baptism. If you’ve already stated your thoughts on this, I must have missed that post & I apologize if I’m asking questions that you’ve already answered.
​

​

 

[Thomas_Aquinas_1]

CradleCath:

I’ve been reading your messages & find them well-formed & Catholic in content. I am, however, interested in your opinion on the alternate forms of Baptism. If you’ve already stated your thoughts on this, I must have missed that post & I apologize if I’m asking questions that you’ve already answered.

I accept Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. This has been the teaching of the Church since the earliest years. St. Augustine speaks of it in his 4th book on baptism, his teacher St. Ambrose wrote of it, and St. Thomas dedicated a question in the Summa to “the three baptisms”. St. Alphonsus Ligouri taught that it wa de fide, based on the teaching of Trent.

With that said, however, I am of the opinion that for a person to be saved, they must have explicit knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation. It has been the common doctrine of the theologians that these two doctrines must be explicitly known and accepted in order for the person to obtain supernatural faith; and it is absolutely certain that without supernatural faith a person cannot obtain the state of grace, which itself is absolutely necessary for salvation.

Regarding the Native American: Simply following the natural law perfectly (which I doubt any unbaptized adult can accomplish) is not, in and of itself, sufficient for salvation. In order to be saved, the person must aquire and die with supernatural charity (sanctifying grace) in their soul.

Any thoughts?

 

[testamentum]

Realcatholictv.com is hardly a church organ. It is made up of arch-conservatives, who hate the post Vatican II Church. it is hardly anything that should be relied upon for any real teachings of the church.

I fail to understand how you can make such a statement,I have listened to many of Realcatholictv programmes and have never heard anything that contradicts authentic Catholic doctrines,I also wonder how you can be so aggressive in your language as to state they Hate the post Vatican church I have seen no evidence of this so called hatred.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

The thread has deviated. No one may judge who is and who is not saved. No one may label anyone.

Either limit your discussion to the OP or I will close the thread, because it has outlived it’s purpose.

 

[bobolink]

My problem with Mr. Voris is that he yearns for the traditional times, but misses a basic control from the traditional times: the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur, the control of the local bishop over his teaching.

RCTV has support from some RC bishops in USA. Also, those approvals do not apply to websites, and you can hardly apply for a Nihil obstat for a video you make fresh everyday and post online that same day.

 

[JReducation]

RCTV has support from some RC bishops in USA. Also, those approvals do not apply to websites, and you can hardly apply for a Nihil obstat for a video you make fresh everyday and post online that same day.

As you have said, there is no such thing as Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur for the Internet. I would like to add that it’s important to understand what Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur mean.

I have worked with such documentation. All they mean is that after examination by a licensed theologian and a bishop, the document may be printed as is, because it contains no doctrinal error. In other words, it does not mean that the signataries like what they are reading.

The Internet is very new. This presents a whole new challenge to the Church. How do you regulate what Catholics put online?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Warrenton]

Tell the Bishop you lay people want to recite the tridentine service or the tridentine breviary.

That will get the good man pondering.

 

[Warrenton]

First of all, Reformation Christians …have made contributions to the Christian world, which Catholics have benefit from.

As some here already know, my feelings about V2 are at best ambivelent.

With respect to this issue, however, I think the council fathers got it right.

Speaking generally, what the ecumenical writings did was to try to “end the reformation.” This was good, and as I have argued elsewhere, few in 1963 could see the dramatic departure from orthodoxy that has bedeviled many Protestant churches (I am using their term out of politeness, Brother) in the ensuing decades. Few would have seen the cooperative efforts we have engaged in re: education of children, the fight against abortion, and the freedom of religious expression.

What is equally clear is that the Protestants who are trying to remain true to their traditions need Catholics to stay true to ours. Ultimately, they draw strength from us. If we drift, they perish. The Episcopal Bishop Spong of Washington State (I think I have this right - and btw, does anyone find the idea of an Episcopal Bishop somehow odd?) is an example of what happens when Christians loose their theological moorings.

So what to do? I think the Pope is on the right track. Permit the traditional, distinctive services of our faith to be practiced again. Not in a mandatory way, but with sufficient freedom that they can be seen and reflected on by Catholics and Protestants alike. This, I think, sends the message to all -even to non-Catholics- that there are depths to our Church that invite further exploration. Yet, the existence of V2 era services permits our brothers to plumb these depths and reconcile to the change in mentality slowly.

For me, the break with tradition that was either caused by or accompanied V2 was abrupt and painful. Notwithstanding that I felt it was both wrong and unjust, I never have wanted to impose the same feelings on others by reversing the process suddenly.

 

[pnewton]

The difference between the encyclicals that I linked to, and the documents of Vatican II, is that no one misinterpreted the prior teachings.

Really? Fr. Feeney? The Old Catholic Church? Were there no heretics before Vatican II?

I really do not see what the difficulty is in understanding the documents. The translation at least seem rather clear to me. I think perhaps is not so much reading the documents is difficult as is reading with an open mind to understand what they say, not what you want them to say.

 

[JReducation]

I believe that the problem is with the way that many people read the documents of Vatican II. Too often, people read them in isolation. Those who want to pull to the far left can do so, but so can those who want to pull to the far right.

The truth is that if one sits down with these documents and reads them academically and historically, you quickly find that you cannot read them in isolation as you would read a cooking recipe. They are really part of a web.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Hunter53]

Really? Fr. Feeney? The Old Catholic Church? Were there no heretics before Vatican II?

I really do not see what the difficulty is in understanding the documents. The translation at least seem rather clear to me. I think perhaps is not so much reading the documents is difficult as is reading with an open mind to understand what they say, not what you want them to say.

Really? Maybe you should explain it to many of the bishops then because after VII the church really fell apart.