S
Student09
Guest
I agree with that. Well said.
- Status
B
Bl_Pope_Pius_IX
Guest
They are words…only…words
However I underrstand where you are coming from.
~ Pius :knight1:
However I underrstand where you are coming from.
~ Pius :knight1:
G
GrandmaRose
Guest
Well, I’ll be first in line to be burned as a heretic and give you my perspective of what I think you’re trying to define as progressive/liberal/modernist, post-Vatican II FAITHFUL Catholic.
Background: Born and reared in 1950’s pre-VII Church, educated for 16 years in Catholic-only institutions by traditional religious orders. Loved the Latin Mass of that era and all the other traditional devotions. Completely saturated with counter-reformation concepts of rules, sin, hell, infallibility, and most particularly a judging God.
Completely and enthusiastically embraced the need for, actions and life-giving breath of the Spirit in the theology, changes and hope for the future of the Church that emanated from Vatican II, including the new liturgy. I acknowledge the loss of some aspects of “the sacred” in the changes to the Mass and music, but consider the community-oriented Eucharistic celebration emphasis and institution of the vernacular to greatly outweigh this loss. I respect the need and desire of my brothers and sisters to continue to celebrate the Latin Mass and support their efforts to do so, as long as the OF continues to be the “ordinary” and available to the majority of the Catholic world. To me, the biggest and most important “change” was the emphasis on God’s love and mercy, not laws and judgment, which was a major deviation from the pre-Vat II catechetical stance.
As far as other “liberal/leftist/progressive” concepts that so frighten and alarm more traditional Catholics, here’s where I – and the majority of people my age and younger – stand, to the best of my knowledge.
We are people born in the 20th and 21st century, not the 12th, and recognize that unprecedented advances in thought concepts and knowledge of human psychology and behavior, human sexuality, reproductive science and all science in general have been made. Unlike the average peasant in the pre-16th centuries, we are educated and able to discern complex concepts, including theology, with the brains and informed consciences God gave us. We don’t need every action to be ratified and codified by the Vatican.
Background: Born and reared in 1950’s pre-VII Church, educated for 16 years in Catholic-only institutions by traditional religious orders. Loved the Latin Mass of that era and all the other traditional devotions. Completely saturated with counter-reformation concepts of rules, sin, hell, infallibility, and most particularly a judging God.
Completely and enthusiastically embraced the need for, actions and life-giving breath of the Spirit in the theology, changes and hope for the future of the Church that emanated from Vatican II, including the new liturgy. I acknowledge the loss of some aspects of “the sacred” in the changes to the Mass and music, but consider the community-oriented Eucharistic celebration emphasis and institution of the vernacular to greatly outweigh this loss. I respect the need and desire of my brothers and sisters to continue to celebrate the Latin Mass and support their efforts to do so, as long as the OF continues to be the “ordinary” and available to the majority of the Catholic world. To me, the biggest and most important “change” was the emphasis on God’s love and mercy, not laws and judgment, which was a major deviation from the pre-Vat II catechetical stance.
As far as other “liberal/leftist/progressive” concepts that so frighten and alarm more traditional Catholics, here’s where I – and the majority of people my age and younger – stand, to the best of my knowledge.
We are people born in the 20th and 21st century, not the 12th, and recognize that unprecedented advances in thought concepts and knowledge of human psychology and behavior, human sexuality, reproductive science and all science in general have been made. Unlike the average peasant in the pre-16th centuries, we are educated and able to discern complex concepts, including theology, with the brains and informed consciences God gave us. We don’t need every action to be ratified and codified by the Vatican.
- Abortion - NO, not in any circumstance, not ever.
- Embryonic stem cell research – NO.
- IVF procedures – only if NO embryos are EVER destroyed or saved for future implantation. This seems to me, under those specific circumstances, to be cooperating with modern science in God’s creative paradigm.
- ABC - Yes, as long as the method is not an abortifacient. We are adults responsible for procreation, education, training and life of our children in our own families.
- Female altar servers - EMHC - Absolutely. Non-issue.
- Married priests - Absolutely, according to each priest’s individual vocation.
- Nuns’ habits - Non-issue. The original “habits” of traditional orders were simply the ordinary dress of the common woman of that time, worn in order to not stand out. The request to modify habits came from Rome in the 1960’s and should be under the purview of the consecrated women of today.
- Women priests. As there is still discussion among theologians whether or not the Vatican statement was made “infallibly,” this may or may not still be on the table. My personal inclination is that the current restriction is an example of exclusivity and is sexist and an error to exclude half of the human race from ordained ministry and full participation in Church decisions.
- Latin Mass – see above. Should be available for those who wish it but not the norm for the majority.
- Gay marriage - NO. Welcoming homosexuals as part of the Body of Christ - absolutely. I’m undecided as to the Church’s expectations that all homosexuals must live a celibate life. Celibacy is a gift not given to everyone – I suspect love and relationship trump celibacy, and I don’t believe sexual orientation is a choice.
- I see the current diminishing state of the RC Church as *not the result of Vat II *but as the common perception of the Church’s diminishing relevance in people’s lives. (NOT MY LIFE – but those who no longer participate in or consider conversion to the RC community). The mishandling of the abuse cases, including ongoing revelations in foreign countries, has done incredible harm. Ultimately the Church will prevail as Jesus promised, but it needs to clean its own house.
S
Student09
Guest
Thank you for giving us an example of a Catholic with modernist views. Maybe I’m mistaken, but if you use and/or support contraception, how is that being faithful? Am I missing something? Or do you mean to say that you are faithful to something other than the Magisterium? I don’t want to be insulting or start a fight, I just don’t understand.
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
I have absolutely no idea at all what a modernist Catholic is. I will say that I believe it is ultra vires the power of the Church to change divine law, e.g. abortion, women priests. I believe that it is intra vires the power of the Church to say solely disciplinary law, e.g. married clergy.
F
fhansen
Guest
Modernism was condemned by the Church. I doubt anyone would call themselves a modernist. Progressive or liberal maybe.
P
pnewton
Guest
Is this thread about your gas usage? I really see no other point. The definitions of “modernist” show that there is a lack of understanding of what the word means. Modernism has nothing to do with female altar servers or the language of the Mass. Modernism has nothing to do with posture during communion. If one reads the oath…
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm
… one would find little that is condemned today at CAF as modernism listed there.
T
TEPO
Guest
The fact that you consider yourself a “post-Vatican II faithful Catholic” creates a division that does not exist, as we are all post-Vatican II faithful Catholics, due to the age we live in…
I just don’t understand how one can think that a peasant in the pre-16th century would be less capable of discerning complex concepts…
This makes no sense… But then again, evolution would have you belive that we all came frome cave-men who were much less intelligent… That must be where the progressive gets his train of thought -from the worldly philosophies of science.
So Vatican II has actually become the scapegoat for Catholics who embrace worldly philosophies.
T
TEPO
Guest
Honestly, I’ve never read the oath until after I posted this thread…
I think I’m learning the true meaning of “modernist” by the one admitted modernist that posted here… After re-reading the Oath from the link that you and another kind poster provided, the truth about modernism has become bone-chillingly real.
Still, I’m not sure what role Vatican II plays besides being a scapegoat… I suppose I should probably read more on VII. Got any more links?
B
Bl_Pope_Pius_IX
Guest
Here are a list of some documents on the Second Vatican Council:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htm
ewtn.com/expert/answers/vatican_ii_docs.htm
Those two lead to many more documents and have seperate links that branch out.
Of course it will take a while, so have fun and good luck!
~ Pius :knight1:
P
pnewton
Guest
This alone should give you an idea of how broadly used the term is.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism_(disambiguation
T
TEPO
Guest
Thanks…
G
GrandmaRose
Guest
I was apparently not clear in my first post, so while I’m truly not joining the debate, I will offer this as explanation of the above.The fact that you consider yourself a “post-Vatican II faithful Catholic” creates a division that does not exist, as we are all post-Vatican II faithful Catholics, due to the age we live in…
I just don’t understand how one can think that a peasant in the pre-16th century would be less capable of discerning complex concepts…
This makes no sense… But then again, evolution would have you belive that we all came frome cave-men who were much less intelligent… That must be where the progressive gets his train of thought -from the worldly philosophies of science.
So Vatican II has actually become the scapegoat for Catholics who embrace worldly philosophies.
- By “post-Vatican II faithful Catholic,” I mean one who has fully embraced, without reservation or regret, all the principles and practices that were generated from that Council – as opposed to many (very) “conservative/traditionalists” on CAF who deplore almost everything that has occurred in the past 40+ years. I don’t mean that disrespectfully at all – but you didn’t seem to understand my meaning, so this is offered to clarify. As I said, I was raised and educated in the pre-VII Church but made the transition to today’s American RC Church enthusiastically and gratefully. I would deplore the idea of ever returning to those days with all they entailed.
- I think you’ll find that historically, very few persons who were not a member of royalty or the clergy, or those who directly served both groups, were educated in any meaningful way, i.e., they did not read nor write their native language or any other language, and had had no exposure to sophisticated philosophical or theological thought beyond the basics. While that may still be true in some third-world cultures today, it is not the norm as it was up until the era of the Reformation, and the mean level of education in wealthier developed countries is higher than it has ever been. I’m only saying that a far greater number of people are now more educated than in previous centuries, with the resultant ability to understand more complex thoughts.
A
At_Trent
Guest
Too funny
M
MerryCatholic
Guest
i only have one thing to say.
i don’t like the term modernist. why? because we are all Catholics. it doesn’t matter if you go to a traditional Mass, or not. we are all Catholics, we all believe the same thing. modernist is just a term that is all. it feels to me like it separates Catholics. remember, we all love the Church, we al believe the exact same thing. so to me, there is no definition. Catholic to me is Catholic. 
A
At_Trent
Guest
Yes, the term can be used too loosely and unfairly applied to someone, but modernism is a cancer, and it is fed by true modernists. They do exist, and thankfully, previous popes saw the danger.i only have one thing to say.
D
dusty_david
Guest
Not catholic here but I see there is a huge divide between, uuuhhhhmmmm, very traditional catholics and uuuhhhhhmmmmm, very contemporary catholics. There’s an easy way to tell who believes what. Just ask traditional and contemporary catholics what they think of jews.
A
At_Trent
Guest
D
dusty_david
Guest
Aren’t christians supposed to be replacing jews … sort of like the new jews? Jesus came, the jews rejected him, and now God is made a new covenant (sp?) with the christians? The jews are now just like hindu, buddists, etc.I’m a traditional Catholic. Fell free to ask.
Edit: mea culpa, I mis-read
Or does God still have something going on with the jews since they were the originals?
Seems like traditional catholics say the jews are replaced with christians. And the contemporary catholics say God still has an agreement with the jews. Or am I completely off track here?
A
At_Trent
Guest
Wow, most of that is new to me lol. We’d be way off the OP’s topic if I tried to get into it.
Let’s just say most traditionalists believe in Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Any religion that rejects the divinity of Christ leads it’s followers away from salvation.
A modernist may look for loopholes, and at worst, proclaim heresy.
- Status