misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II

[Gregory_I]

Ok, MAterial, and Formal:

Material means pertaining to matter,

Formal means, pertaining to form.

The Protestants of today are material heretics, in that they refuse to commune with the catholic church and hold to doctrines that are materially heretical: The material of the doctrines are heretical in and of themselves, therefore those who hold them are material heretics.

The Protestants of the Reformation, and any Protestants who actively dissent willfully from the teaching of the church; a baptized person who contumaciously denies dogma or certain doctrine after receiving correction is a formal heretic.

 

[JReducation]

Ok, MAterial, and Formal:

Material means pertaining to matter,

Formal means, pertaining to form.

The Protestants of today are material heretics, in that they refuse to commune with the catholic church and hold to doctrines that are materially heretical: The material of the doctrines are heretical in and of themselves, therefore those who hold them are material heretics.

The Protestants of the Reformation, and any Protestants who actively dissent willfully from the teaching of the church; a baptized person who contumaciously denies dogma or certain doctrine after receiving correction is a formal heretic.

With all due respects, this is an incorrect application of Canon Law. The term “heretic” is a canonical term. The current Code of Canon Law only applies to Roman Catholics. It does not even apply to the Oriental or Eastern Catholics, because there is a code for them.

The Code has no jurisdiction over those who are born outside of the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, the term heretic cannot be applied to them, because the code was not written to address them.

The definition of heretic used by the Catholic Church is that which is found in Canon Law. However, since Canon Law was written only for Catholics, these definitions do not apply to Protestants and Orthodox. That is why we do not refer to Orthodox as schismatic either.

Christians born outside of the Catholic Church are not guilty of any canonical crime. Heresy is a canonical crime. To apply terms such as heretic, apostate or schismatic, the person must be inside the Catholic Church and break communion with the Catholic Church in some lesser or greater degree.

Pope John Paul II made this very clear in Ut Unum Sint, that such terms were not to be used in speaking to or about the Reformation Ecclesial Communities. It was also made clear in the Unitatis Redintegratio. These documents are legal documents that stipulate how we should and should not deal with Christians of other communities and the Orthodox Churches.

Those Christians who are born outside of the Catholic Church are in an imperfect communion with the Church, but are not heretics, schismatic or apostates.

Remember, the rule of law is that you must have jurisdiction in order to apply the law. The Catholic Church does not claim jurisdiction over those who are born into other faith communities. Even within the Catholic Church, jurisdiction is limited to each of the 23 Catholic Churches, meaning that the jurisdiction of the Roman or Latin Church does not reach over to the Chaldean, Greek, Ukrainian or other Catholic Churches. Only those laws that are common apply to all. The definition of heresy and the sanctions that go with it is found in both the Roman Code of Canon Law and the Oriental Code of Canon Law. It applies to Catholics in any of the 23 Catholic Churches, but not to non-Catholics.

This is what the current law of the Roman Church says about Protestants.

**The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. (UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO Chap 1, Parr 3) **

Therefore, they cannot be accused of heresy to any degree, because any degree of heresy is a sin.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Judge_Mental]

Protestants are not heretics. They’re now in different Churches. Heresy is a technical definition. They are just deluded. 20,000 sects, all claiming to have the Truth.

The problem is that progressives think that Protestantism has something to offer that Catholicism doesn’t e.g. pentecostalism. It doesn’t.

 

[ProVobis]

Protestants are not heretics. They’re now in different Churches. Heresy is a technical definition. They are just deluded. 20,000 sects, all claiming to have the Truth.

The problem is that progressives think that Protestantism has something to offer that Catholicism doesn’t e.g. pentecostalism. It doesn’t.

There are some who think that there are many more than that. They even break down Catholicism into different denominations, starting with one for each country.

philvaz.com/apologetics/a120.htm

philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm

 

[ProVobis]

Those Christians who are born outside of the Catholic Church are in an imperfect communion with the Church, but are not heretics, schismatic or apostates.

But we’ll give some credit to those Protestants (such as Agatha Christie et al) for convincing the Pope Paul VI to preserve the old Catholic rite and keeping the study of Latin and Greek alive in the universities. Without them, who knows what would have happened.

OTOH, even the OF would probably be entirely different.

 

[Sirach2]

Thomas_Aquinas:

The above represents the teaching of the Church with respect to ecclesiology, and no pretended development can contradict it. True development only adds clarity to what has always been believed; it never contradicts what has been previously taught.

From several of your posts, it has become clear that you are frozen in a time capsule that does not reverence or accept the current teachings of the Church. My prayer is that you would study the Council’s documents as avidly as you pore over those of antiquity, for in these, if your faith is true, you will find enlightenment. The Catechism of today embraces those teachings in an exceedingly greater capacity than the limits of Pius X. You would do well to study and promote these, as well.
Council Document Dei Verbum, Chapter II

This tradition which comes from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture AND the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.
We understand, therefore that the Magisterium alone has the authority and charism from God to teach His truth as found in both Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

 

[Thomas_Aquinas_1]

From several of your posts, it has become clear that you are frozen in a time capsule that does not reverence or accept the current teachings of the Church. My prayer is that you would study the Council’s documents as avidly as you pore over those of antiquity, for in these, if your faith is true, you will find enlightenment. The Catechism of today embraces those teachings in an exceedingly greater capacity than the limits of Pius X. You would do well to study and promote these, as well.
Council Document Dei Verbum, Chapter II

This tradition which comes from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.

Do you find it odd that you no longer believe what the Church clearly taught right up to Vatican II? Does it not concern you that you no longer believe what all Catholic believed for the first 1965 years of Catholicism? Does the truth change? Is that which was believed prior to Vatican II now forbidden? Or could it be that you have interpreted Vatican II in a way you shouldn’t have?

You need to realize two things: First, the teachings of the Church do not change. The Deposit of Faith was handed down from the apostles and no change is possible. Development of doctrine simply means that teachings which were held implicitly become explicit, or that the terminology used to describe the teaching becomes more clear. True development of doctrine never results in a change in understanding of what was previously believed. For example, Catholics always believed the Eucharist was the body and blood of Christ. This is clear from the Church Fathers. Over time, the Church began to express this using the distinction between the substance and accidents; however, no change in meaning took place. Exactly what was believed in the early years was still believe by Catholics. The only difference is that the truth was understood more clearly. Any pretended “development” that changes the understanding in such a way that the person no longer believes what was taught previously, is not true development of doctrine; it is evolution of doctrine.

The second thing you need to realize is that the Liberals promote *evolution of dogma * using the name development of doctrine. This enables them to lead the unwary into error without their realizing it. Since development of dogma is a valid term, they simply refer to evolution of dogma as a “development of doctrine”. By this tactic, they justify their rejections the teachings they don’t like by claiming they have “developed”.

In response to this error of the Liberal, the first Vatican Council stated the following:

Vatican I:

“13. For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

1. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a deeper understanding.

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding”.

Unfortunately, this teaching of Vatican I did not prevent the Liberals from continuing with their strategy. Therefore, Pius X prepared the Oath Against Modernism, which again condemned this evil tactic, and required all Priests, religious, and Seminarian to take it once a year.

Oath Against Modernism: Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely."

Vatican II is “misinterpreted” by many. If you interpret Vatican II as teaching in any way contrary to the Catechism of Pius X, you have interpreted the documents in a way you should not have. And since so many people interprete Vatican II in such a way that they depart from what the Church taught for the 1965 years, I would suggest that you begin to study what the Church taught prior to Vatican II. My prayer is that you would study the pre-Vatican II documents as avidly as you pore over those of Vatican II, for in them, if your faith is true, you will find enlightenment.​

 

[Sirach2]

I realized that when I submitted my post, it would afford you an opportunity to twist and spin and present the Church in a totally unfavorable light. It was posted primarily for those who are loyal to the Church and accept Her guidance as coming from the Lord Himself.

You reject it at your own peril and you bear full responsibility for scattering the sheep and scandalizing Christ’s little ones. Ultima Ratio!

 

[Thomas_Aquinas_1]

I realized that when I submitted my post, it would afford you an opportunity to twist and spin and present the Church in a totally unfavorable light. It was posted primarily for those who are loyal to the Church and accept Her guidance as coming from the Lord Himself.

You reject it at your own peril and you bear full responsibility for scattering the sheep and scandalizing Christ’s little ones. Ultima Ratio!

Why are you so annoyed that I still believe what all Catholics believed prior to Vatican II? Is it your position that Vatican II changed the teaching of the Church? If you interpret Vatican II in such a way that it contradicts what the Church taught prior to Vatican II, I would submit that you have interpreted it incorrectly.

 

[ProVobis]

It was posted primarily for those who are loyal to the Church and accept Her guidance as coming from the Lord Himself.

Okay, here’s a philosophical question. How can one not accept what’s now allowed? For example, no more meat abstinence requirement, no more Latin, no more fasts, using conscience, pray with Protestants, allow Protestant music, liturgy facing the people, increasing the decibel level of the liturgy, method of receiving communion, etc. I can understand mandated practices such as a 1-hr fast before communion but how many truly mandated practices do we really have to fulfill this “loyalty to the Church”? Please don’t list the relaxed practices.

 

[Sirach2]

You misunderstand, Pro Vobis. To address all of your points would take a multitude of threads, which is beyond the scope of being able to answer you here in a single post. I realize you have access to all of the information, for you are a long-standing member and read many posts/threads. The forum’s ‘advanced’ search facility is excellent!

 

[Timothy17]

What we can all agree on is this: the Church has been going through some growing pains over the last half-century. It is very easy to blame these problems on the Second Vatican Council. But I would like to propose something. Let us do a thought experiment. Given the direction the world was going in the tumultuous decade of the 1960’s, would it not be reasonable to assume that upheaval was coming to the Church, council or no council? Rather than simply assume that the upheaval was caused by the Council, would it not be reasonable to consider that the council helped to stem the tidal wave of change that was enveloping the world? In other words, could it not be true that rather than being a catalyst for the issues that arose shortly afterward, what if the Council is viewed as a preparation for the upcoming change. I am not saying it was one or the other, but I am merely pointing out a different light in which the documents can be viewed.

That tidal wave of change took advantage of the Church’s Second Vatican Council and actively, militantly intended to abuse and create confusion, rebellion, etc. Don’t let anyone teach or tell you or yours that the broader cultural “changes” of the 60’s suddenly just appeared out of thin air. The changes did not just blow in as if the wind itself brought them. The difference in the West is that these changes were subtle, sinister and subversive as opposed to being open and obvious in the East, as with Mao’s, Lenin’s, Stalin’s, et al.'s “changes.” These changes were manufactured and constructed - nay, engineered - beforehand, then applied and actuated to accomplish their purpose here in the West. There was ample warning that this was coming. The same stratagems that succeeded in the East would not succeed in the West, and in fact would risk triggering a virtual Western crusade to eliminate the source and causes of these “changes.” This is because the West’s patriotism and military tradition means open combat, whether via direct internal rebellion or from outside assault, was always a dangerous and precarious enterprise, and if you lost on the first attack, then you would have no where to hide when the counter-attack came. Camelot needed to be defeated by betrayal on the inside : Troy needed a Trojan Horse. A different formula was therefore needed. The 60’s and since has only been the result of the active application of that subversive formula to undermine Western tradition and the societies, cultures and nations those very traditions produced and protected.

Look at what happened to those men in the 50’s and into the 60’s who combatted communism’s nefarious and clandestine purposes in their home nations. They were utterly demonized, and most of them ultimately abandoned and betrayed. Not all of them knew exactly what was wrong or why it was wrong, but nonetheless they fought it insomuch as it was given to them to fight a clear and present threat and danger. Once the demonization and character defamation of opponents had succeeded into silencing any new opposition (by fear and threats), then the cultural revolution (the sexual revolution) of the 60’s lighted like a fire storm and swept the West. This is not a coincidence.

I have said this before : the Protestant Reformation required a Counter-reformation. The Cultural Revolutions require Counter-revolution. I do not mean military ones as the world would have it. I mean Counter-revolution in the culture itself. Catholicism is pure and authentic counter-culture, because its cult (the worship of the Triune God) is pure and authentic. The world has no legitimate substitute, and it tries to remove our cult by destroying its product, our culture. Our cult frees us from the despotism of fashion and opinion and liberates us from the dictatorship of relativism. The cultural revolutions create anti-heroes who feigned counter-culture, victimization, etc., and made themselves as wolves in sheep’s clothing. Criminals, rebels, revolutionaries and degenerates were lifted up as the new saints of the West, and are offered up for mass human emulation.

The Second Vatican Council is absolutely not the source of the aforementioned stratagems and formulas meant to undermine the West. That council’s formulas and context did not take into account what had not yet been done in and to the West. Very likely the world watched and waited for the Second Vatican Council to conclude, and disperse itself, before taking it into account and then proceeding with its myriad agendas and purposes. Clearly, undermining and abusing the Council and causing as much confusion about it as possible was on the agenda of the Church’s enemies, who by proxy are also, ultimately, the enemies of mankind, whether realizing this or not.

Pax Christi,
Tim

 

[PAboy57]

To say the least there has been so many disagreements regarding Vatican II and the way the way we practice our faith.

We must hold fast and understand that Christ and the Holy Spirit will provide the guidance for changes that are needed. They may not happen as fast as we want but they will happen. We have been through a tough period of reform and many who have resisted the reforms, or misinterpretations of V II.

Time will tell the truth and laying everything on the table for discussion is good. The Holy Spirit will guide us to the place we need to be. This I firmly believe.

 

[centurionguard]

Paint labels on everything? Real teachings of the church cover 21 councils and many Papal encyclicals. How many of them do you accept?

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.

 

[Timothy17]

To say the least there has been so many disagreements regarding Vatican II and the way the way we practice our faith.

We must hold fast and understand that Christ and the Holy Spirit will provide the guidance for changes that are needed. They may not happen as fast as we want but they will happen. We have been through a tough period of reform and many who have resisted the reforms, or misinterpretations of V II.

Time will tell the truth and laying everything on the table for discussion is good. The Holy Spirit will guide us to the place we need to be. This I firmly believe.

I also believe this to be the case.

 

[JReducation]

Protestants are not heretics. They’re now in different Churches. Heresy is a technical definition. They are just deluded. 20,000 sects, all claiming to have the Truth.

The problem is that progressives think that Protestantism has something to offer that Catholicism doesn’t e.g. pentecostalism. It doesn’t.

First of all, Reformation Christians are ot Churches. They are ecclesial communities. To be a Church one must have Apostolic Succession. Since they do not have a sacramental priesthood, they lost that when the founders died.

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.

But we’ll give some credit to those Protestants (such as Agatha Christie et al) for convincing the Pope Paul VI to preserve the old Catholic rite and keeping the study of Latin and Greek alive in the universities. Without them, who knows what would have happened.

OTOH, even the OF would probably be entirely different.

As I said above, Protestants have made very important contributions to Christianity. Their scholars were the first to engage in serious historical exegesis. Gradually, Catholic scholars enaged in it. Together with Jewish scholars we know much more about how the scriptures were written, why, where, when, much more about the subtleties of languages used in scripture and a lot more about the culture of the times. They set this in motion.

They worked alongside Catholics to buid universities and hospitals in the USA. The Puritans tried to de-secularize Christianity. As we can see, we Catholics are not the only ones who struggle with the difference between secularity, which is good, and secularis, which is bad.

Why are you so annoyed that I still believe what all Catholics believed prior to Vatican II? Is it your position that Vatican II changed the teaching of the Church? If you interpret Vatican II in such a way that it contradicts what the Church taught prior to Vatican II, I would submit that you have interpreted it incorrectly.

Vatican II did not change any doctrine, nor did it change any theology written prior to Vatican II. It did expand the theological understanding of doctrine and it expanded the meaning behind some theological writings. Pope Benedict explains this very well in his writings. Bl. John Henry Newman explained this in The Development of Christian Doctrine. We’re always reaching a deeper understanding.

Okay, here’s a philosophical question. How can one not accept what’s now allowed? For example, no more meat abstinence requirement, no more Latin, no more fasts, using conscience, pray with Protestants, allow Protestant music, liturgy facing the people, increasing the decibel level of the liturgy, method of receiving communion, etc. I can understand mandated practices such as a 1-hr fast before communion but how many truly mandated practices do we really have to fulfill this “loyalty to the Church”? Please don’t list the relaxed practices.

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.

It is also important to remember that the Church provides options. For example, the Friday abstinence can be replaced with some other form of penance. The Church did not do away with the penanitential nature of Fridays. The same applies to fasting and abstinence. There is no prohibition. What the Church did was take away the moral culpability. It was a mortal sin to eat meat on a day of abstinence. That was a law made by the Church. She has the power and authority to make such laws. She also has the power and authority to abrogate them. This takes us back to binding and unbinding.

This is where we must be very careful. There is always a danger that in our desire to see certain things maintained, there is a danger that we may cross a line that should never be crossed. That line is that we deny the hierarchy the authority to bind and unbind. In this case, we’re really talking about unbinding. But there are extremists on both sides. Some don’t want to see the Church unbind anything. Others scream bloody murder when the Church binds. 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, but in the end, it will serve some purpose in God’s plan. Its purpose may not be revealed until long after we’re gone.

Fraternaly,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Frosty]

It is also important to remember that the Church provides options. For example, the Friday abstinence can be replaced with some other form of penance. The Church did not do away with the penanitential nature of Fridays. The same applies to fasting and abstinence. There is no prohibition. What the Church did was take away the moral culpability.** It was a mortal sin to eat meat on a day of abstinence. That was a law made by the Church. She has the power and authority to make such laws.** She also has the power and authority to abrogate them.

Even in the decades prior to Vatican II, the days of abstinence were not universal as some would have us believe. For example, in the U.S. Wednesdays were also days of abstinence but not here in Canada. I live in a border city. The old time locals are fond of recalling how on Wednesdays, many of the most popular steak and rib restaurants were full of Americans who would come over to eat a meal with meat and then head back home over the border. Technically * they were not committing any sin since the obligation was not in force here Apparently this went on for decades.*

 

[ProVobis]

That line is that we deny the hierarchy the authority to bind and unbind. In this case, we’re really talking about unbinding. But there are extremists on both sides. Some don’t want to see the Church unbind anything. **Others scream bloody murder when the Church binds. ** 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, but in the end, it will serve some purpose in God’s plan. Its purpose may not be revealed until long after we’re gone.

This is precisely my point. Once something is unbound, how does the hierarchy “bind back” once they see things have been abused, misunderstood, misinterpreted, misapplied, etc?

You mention in your example the case of removal of the requirement to abstain from meat on Friday. In my neck of the woods back in the 60’s, they were all thrilled to death when they heard this, if not pleasantly shocked. What a great thing, etc., etc., etc. But where’s the increased level of spirituality that came with that as the Pope had intended? I would venture to say that most did not know (and still don’t know) about the spirit of the “allowance” to eat meat on Fridays. And probably just as many today aren’t aware or just ignore the penance requirement.

And then what about that “conscience” clause in Populorum Progressio? I bet many were so thrilled to hear that from their priests that they totally ignored what was to follow in Humanae Vitae. Here was an obvious case of binding something which was perceived to be unbound and the people reacted very negatively. But the truly sad part is that many will think they are following the Church’s teachings by just following what they wanted to hear and not what was actually said.

 

[JReducation]

This is precisely my point. Once something is unbound, how does the hierarchy “bind back” once they see things have been abused, misunderstood, misinterpreted, misapplied, etc?

You mention in your example the case of removal of the requirement to abstain from meat on Friday. In my neck of the woods back in the 60’s, they were all thrilled to death when they heard this, if not pleasantly shocked. What a great thing, etc., etc., etc. But where’s the increased level of spirituality that came with that as the Pope had intended? I would venture to say that most did not know (and still don’t know) about the spirit of the “allowance” to eat meat on Fridays. And probably just as many today aren’t aware or just ignore the penance requirement.

And then what about that “conscience” clause in Populorum Progressio? I bet many were so thrilled to hear that from their priests that they totally ignored what was to follow in Humanae Vitae. Here was an obvious case of binding something which was perceived to be unbound and the people reacted very negatively. But the truly sad part is that many will think they are following the Church’s teachings by just following what they wanted to hear and not what was actually said.

I think that Pope Benedict said it best when he recently said that it is not the pope’s job to micro-manage bishops or laity. The Church issues the guidelines. She teaches. As we said, she binds and unbinds. At the local level, it is the duty of the parishes to provide the catechesis so that people understand. The truth is that this has not been done at all in some places and poorly in others. In a few places was this done well.

I volunteer at a parish that has on-going formation for the laity. They have tons of things going on every week: Scritpure classes, adult religious ed, theology seminars, retreats, a visiting lecturer on this or that. It’s interesting to see how the parish staff goes out of its way to catechize and how it’s always the same people who take advantage of these opportunities.

I volunteer to teach scripture to middle schoolers. Only 11 families signed up. We can’t go and drag them from their homes. Last year I had 16 families. Maybe next year I’ll have more. At least the catechesis is available. The kids studied all of the Messianic prophecies and finished with the Nativity narratives. They could see the progression.

This semester we’re doing the Suffering Servant and finishing with the Passion and Resurrection.

It’s a good program, because it ties in doctrine, sacraments, liturgy, the Fathers, and scripture. Several parents said that it was too intense and did not enroll their kids.

How much can you do?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[edwest2]

Okay, here’s a philosophical question. How can one not accept what’s now allowed? For example, no more meat abstinence requirement, no more Latin, no more fasts, using conscience, pray with Protestants, allow Protestant music, liturgy facing the people, increasing the decibel level of the liturgy, method of receiving communion, etc. I can understand mandated practices such as a 1-hr fast before communion but how many truly mandated practices do we really have to fulfill this “loyalty to the Church”? Please don’t list the relaxed practices.

You must ask yourself, who allowed this? Certainly not Vatican II. The prohibition from eating meat on Friday was not abandoned and could still be practiced by the way.

Peace,
Ed