S
StTommyMore
Guest
I asked for quotes, from the Vatican 2 documents that shows that the council is to blame for issues since the council NO ONE HAS DONE THIS. I am not asking for much, just simple backing up of your claims.
- Status
S
StTommyMore
Guest
Am opening address is not a conciliar document. YOu have to provide a quote from one of the sixteen documents.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I do like the fact that it will force some discipline among the English faithful but I fail to see how it meets the objectives/goals of SC any better.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
Perhaps citations from the documents themselves was too much to ask
T
Thomas_Aquinas_1
Guest
Will the Moderators permit a frank and open discussion about Vatican II? Will they permit magisterial teachings, from 1789 through 1958, to be openly compared with the documents of Vatican II?
I do believe such a conversation would be useful, but for the discussion to be complete, we would have to examine the errors of 1789 by quoting the words of the Popes who condemned them; next, we could see what Vatican II says on several of these issues.
Now, I concede that the Vatican II documents can usually be interpreted in such a way that they do not explicitly teach what these Popes condemned, but no one interprets them that way, and doing so required much effort.
So, if a Moderator would be so kind as to post a reply giving permission to quote the magisterial teachings of the Church prior to Vatican II, and then compare them with what Vatican II taught, I will quote the relevant documents.
If this is permitted, each person will be able to see for themselves why Traditionalists have an issue with certain parts of the non infallible teachings of the “merely pastoral Council” (Ratzinger’s words) of Vatican II.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
I would be in favor of this as no contradictions exist. And “pastoral” and “dogmatic” are not mutually exclusive terms. In fact fro something to be truly pastoral, there must be a dogmatic element to it (Ottaviani’s words).
C
CradleCath
Guest
I do too. Even with the new Translation, the Novus Ordo Mass will still be the N.O. Mass. with it’s constant noise & movement, it’s emphasis on the Last Supper instead of Calvary, it’s lack of solemnity & the sanctuary will still be filled with the Laity.
What I would like to see is for the hierarchy in this country to take the TLM. to their hearts & allow it to be equal to the Novus Ordo Mass, to promote it in RICA classes & in what’s left of our Catholic schools in the same way they promote the N.O. Instead they’re putting a bandaid on a Mass that, as Pope Benedict said is “manufactured & banal” instead of standing with the Pope on this & embracing S.P. It isn’t right.
J
Judge_Mental
Guest
I don’t know what’s in the US Constitution. I’m not living in America.
The Vatican Two documents are being touted as dogmatic statments of relgious belief and yet there are wide interpretations as to what they actually mean. They have caused uproar in a body dedicated to ‘caritas et pax’. Therefore, I say they need to be officially corrected, clarified, annotated or shelved.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
First conciliar documents cannot be “shelved.” They are Magisterial documents. Second, if people would simply go to the documents and read them, they are quite clear. The post-conciliar confusion is not the fault of the documents themselves, but from people doing things in the name of the documents that were not called for. Stop blaming the council, and place blame where it is due.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
Banal rhetoric. No emphasis on the Sacrifice? You seem to be unfamiliar with the text of the Novus Ordo.
T
Thomist_student
Guest
Doesn’t Vatican II teach the exact opposite of the consistent pre-Vatican II Catholic teaching, on some important issues? See, e.g., scribd.com/doc/46116957
S
StTommyMore
Guest
W
Warrenton
Guest
T
Thomist_student
Guest
Well, Tommy, you can say “no” all you want, but that does not prevent the fact that the plain words of Vatican II, in some places surely appear to say the opposite of the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church. For example, on religious liberty. scribd.com/doc/46116957
S
Sirach2
Guest
Ahem, looks to me like pure poppycock, to use a crude expression. I often wonder why folks are so eager to drag up blogs such as this to palliate the authentic teachings of the Church, as if She is double-minded and full on contradictions.
Quite a few years before the Council, Pius XII said practically the same thing in his official encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi:
- Though We desire this unceasing prayer to rise to God from the whole Mystical Body in common, that all the straying sheep may hasten to enter the one fold of Jesus Christ, yet We recognize that this must be done of their own free will; for no one believes unless he wills to believe.[198] Hence they are most certainly not genuine Christians[199] who against their belief are forced to go into a church, to approach the altar and to receive the Sacraments; for the “faith without which it is impossible to please God”[200] is an entirely free “submission of intellect and will.”[201] Therefore, whenever it happens, despite the constant teaching of this Apostolic See,[202] that anyone is compelled to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, Our sense of duty demands that We condemn the act.
L
laszlo
Guest
What required part of the New Mass make this evil necessary?
What parts of the TLM prevent the abuses?
There are over half million New Masses in every weekend most of them with 300 or more people and less than 2000 TLMs most of them with 100 people around
If you go out from the suburbs either to the villages or to the inner cities you will find reverend new form masses. At least a quarter of million new form masses are reverent in a weekend. And Jesus Christ is present in all of them.
Why is the form unwanted by the majority of the people more important than the real presence of our Lord. He born in a barn, laid into a manger. He died on the tree of shame. This was the reason why the pharisee and the Jews rejected Him. They wanted King in his glory. What do you expect?
T
Thomist_student
Guest
I think it is very obvious, Tommy, that it is worlds different that the Catholic Church prohibits people being forced to practice the Catholic Faith and what Vatican II does, saying that non-Catholics have a right to practice a non-Catholic religion publicly. Don’t you see this distinction?
T
Thomas_Aquinas_1
Guest
St.ThommyMore,
In your opinion, do the follow two quotes teach the same truth?
Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura: "For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism,” as they call it, dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,” viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"3 and that “if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.”
Can the above teaching be reconciled with the following from Vatican II?
Vatican II Dignitatis Humanae: "2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right. … In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed."
In your opinion, do these two teachings appear to be consistent with one another?
In your opinion, do the follow two quotes teach the same truth?
Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura: "For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism,” as they call it, dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,” viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"3 and that “if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.”
Can the above teaching be reconciled with the following from Vatican II?
Vatican II Dignitatis Humanae: "2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right. … In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed."
In your opinion, do these two teachings appear to be consistent with one another?
A
At_Trent
Guest
What sort of argument is that really ? Seeing as though the TLM was suppressed long enough that the majority priests who could pray it are now dead or retired.
The TLM is steadily growing since the SP, and diocesan parishes continue to be merged.
J
JReducation
Guest
That’s not what he’s saying at all. He’s saying that you cannot put a square peg into a round hole. The Church has to define itself in such a way that it responds to the world in which it exists. He’s not saying that she has to conform. There is a difference between defining yourself and understanding your mission in light of today’s realities and becoming Masonic.
I would suggest that people read Light of the World. Pope Benedict addresses this issue very clearly and very simply. He also goes back to his earlier comments on the fabrication of the liturgy and restates it differently, explaining that there is continuity between the Missal of Paul VI and the Tridentine Missal.
He reminds us that the Tridentine Missal as we knew it had its own very interesting history. It was an old missal of a form that had been used by some of the Catholic Churches during the 11th century. Pope Innocent III gave it to Francis of Assisi as a gift. Francis gave it to one of the brothers who was a priest. That brother taguht it to other broher-priests. As they went along, they made modifications to it. It was at the Council of Trent that this form was adopted for the Roman Church, but not to the exclusion of other forms that were in place. Only some forms were abrogated, not all. In essence, the Tridentine form that we received after Vatican II is really a modified version of a previously modified version of the liturgy. The Franciscans made the first modifications, Trent made others and others were made in 1962. Observe that SP does not allow the use of the forms pror to 1962, except those that are proper to certain regions of the world or certain religious orders.
Pope Benedict alludes to this in the book saying that the liturgy has never been static, but acknowleding that there have been abuses. At the same time, he also refutes the idea that there was no such thing as liturgical abuse prior to the Ordinary Form. There were, that’s why there were so many forms that eventually were suppressed. But not every form was suppressed. Therefore, we cannot claim that we have had only one form in the Roman Church or that the form of 1962 is the same as the form celebrated by the first priests to join the Franciscans under the missal that would eventually become the official missal of the Roman Church.
We have to get past the defense of this or that liturgical form. We have to get past this or that statement made by so and so, if we’re going to understand what Pope Benedict is saying today. You cannot listen to popes in stereo. There are several options here:
*]Every pope prior to John XXIII was right and those who followed were wrong
*]Every pope prior to John XXIII was wrong and those who followed were right
*]All the popes are right, because each is speakining in a historical context. What Pope X said in the 17th century he may not have said in the 20th century, because it’s a different world.
I believe that the answer is #3 and Pope Benedict is right. The vision of the Church back in the day . . . does not work, because the world is different. There no longer is a Catholic Europe or a Christian America for that matter. The world is what it is and the Church must persevere in her mission, but she must do so in a manner that today’s world can understand. That’s all that he’s saying.
It is not the Church’s fault that there is no longer a Catholic Europe or a Christian America. These deteriorations would have happened regardless of a Vatican II. I believe that what we can say, in all honesty, is that we did not do a good job at catechesis after Vatican II. As a result, more people left that Church than they would have, had we done a better job. But millions were going to leave anyway, because the world was pulling and pulling hard. Let’s face it, sin is always much more attractive. The social, economic and political systems of the 20th century unleashed sin by denying its existence and declaring it superstition or guilt trips.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status