New Book Examines Vatican II

[Shoshana]

But She came also to exalt the power of simple Christians and to appeal to them. It is often said that thanks to Vatican II the place of the laity was recognized in a Church that up until then had been suffocated by clericalism. But if the Council created a dispute over rules and power, clericalism has, however remained. And it is not understood that it was precisely the Madonna, well before the Council, who pointed out the road at Fatima: something more revolutionary—in the church totally centered on priests and hierarchal power—by the mother of God appearing to lay people, indeed to three children who, apart from Lucia, had not even made their First Communion, as was the case with Bernadette Soubirous of Lourdes? And the Queen of heaven and of earth called precisely them to the highest of missions, to exercise, therefore, the power for which we are qualified by a simple Baptism, which transforms every human being into ‘priest, king and prophet.’ P221

 

[uther]

• The victory of Protestantism within Roman Catholicism? Is this not already an apocalyptic event? And the sign of this Protestant victory was precisely the hostility (Pelegian, modernist, and activist) against Mary which was manifested during the Council and in the post-conciliar Church. It is also seen in the hostility to Fatima and the hard-fought battle which had been waged against the recognition of our Lady’s titles—Mediatrix of All Graces and Co-Redemptrix—which springs forth from all Catholic Tradition. Yet, in the tempest of the post-conciliar period, only one thing has descended into crisis: the Marian sanctuaries which represented the lifeboat for rescuing the faith and the people, so despised by theologians precisely because they are linked to Mary, ‘Help of Christians.’ P203

That is interesting. I just recently heard Fr. Shannon Collins, not renowned for modernism by any means, point out that VII talked of Mary and her role and invoked her intercession more than all previous councils combined. The hostility, it seems, did not come from the Council so much as the opportunism of those modernists who used the fact of the Council to foist their hostility upon so many unsuspecting Catholics who they knew would likely never read the Council documents for themselves. The same is true of much of the rest of the error that followed the Council, particularly with respect to the liturgy.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

This book by journalist Antonio Socci is certainly getting some copyright infringement on this website! As the protestants interpret the Book of Revelation sans the Catholic Church, those in opposition to the Church have Fatima to kick around. This proves explicitly that if “we don’t have the Church, we won’t know what to believe”, and opposition it is if one believes a journalist over the Vatican sec. of state.

Penance, Penance, Penance was the exhortation of the Angel and the message of Fatima is of reparation. The crisis of faith is seemingly related to those who don’t believe the Church as the successors of the apostles that are mandated with the authority to run the Church, that is in a word, dissent. It is wrong to use Vat II as a justification for dissent as well as blaming it for the lack of faith in those who do dissent. Striving for holiness is not as fun as seeing oneself as battling evil institutions but the pride involved is antithetical to the entire message of humility in the Gospel, and if that institution is the Catholic Church, then one is biting the hand that feeds it, literally.

Without the Church responding to the changing times with the Gospel that does not change, then we could only use the thoughts and writings of the apostles themselves and no other update such as Augustine, Aquinas, or Bellarmine, and certainly nothing could be added to the Catholic understanding by St Therese of Lisieux, St Faustina, or even Blessed Jacinta and Francisco if the Church is not to be believed. Before one discounts the Church, please, as the Angel of Fatima says, “Pray! Pray very much!”

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

“and opposition it is if one believes a journalist over the Vatican sec. of state.”

I think neither a journalist nor a Secretary of State enjoys or is attempting to exercise any charisms of infallibility. The truth at this point, is not to be known by appeal to authority. Especially when the Message of Fatima allegedly points to neglect by high ranking Vatican officials, prudence would in this instance, seem to suggest that neither party be believed because of their profession or office, but because of the arguments brought forward. I have read neither book.

 

[Shoshana]

Socci s very respectful of the Vatican and admonished those you THINK believe that the pope is not the successor of the Apostles.

There is no infringment on copyright, as quotes are allowed from any book. Before making sweeping remarks, one should ask for the grace of diseernement. It is not against the Holy Spirit to see the bad fruits of those who take advantage of the Church.

i keep repeating that Socci is not part of the fatimist gang. One does not discount the Church by reading such material as Socci brings up. His book is very well documented.

There is none so blind than those who do not wish to see.

True humility is rooted in Truth. And just because we see a glimmer of truth in this book, does not make one proud. We are mandated to educate ourselves.

The atmosphere at the time of Vatican II was far from being humble. When 450 bishops at the Council did not want the pact between Russia and Rome, they were told to sit down and be quiet. The protest did not go any further. Russia demanded that if the Council wanted two patriarchs from Russia to sit on their Council, the Council had to submit to the fact of not saying that communism was an evil. Hence, the problem begins…

The message of Fatima evidently was felt to be profoundly embarrassing by one who was preparing to agree to what he thought to be a masterpiece of diplomacy and ecumenism: a pact with the Kremlin to have two Russian Orthodox observers at the Council, guaranteeing to that regime, in exchange, the Council would not formulate any condemnation of Communism or the Soviet system… Beyond the judgment ( the worst possible) that one must give to this compromise of the ‘moral liberty’ of the Catholic church and of the Council itself, and moreover in return for a mess of pottage (two Orthodox observers well-chosen and controlled by the KGB) one remains horrified in the face of a Council—what is more a ‘pastoral’ council, and this one occupied with the historical reality of the church—that pronounces itself on everything, but does not proffer a single word on the ideology of a regime that since 1917 had realized (and was still realizing in those years) on a planetary scale the most intense and bloody work of eradication, extermination, and persecution of the church in its bimillenial history,’ Pius XII was attacked furiously for years , because according to the critics, he did not formulate clear and public condemnations of Nazism during the war (which is, however, untrue). But John 23 has received only applause for having contracted this ‘silence’ with the Kremlin. How is this explained? P198

The terms of this unheard-of-accord were the voyage of monsignor Willebrands to Moscow, from September 27 to October 2, 1962 (see Zizola, John 23 pp210-211) and the so called Metz Pact, sanctioned in the springtime of 1962 between Cardinal Tisserant and Metropolitan Nikodim. Events had it that two observers arrived at the council precisely on October 13, 1962, the anniversary of the great miracle of Fatima during the last apparition. ‘The written intervention against Communism on the part of 450 Council fathers was ‘lost’ mysteriously after having been delivered to the Secretary of the council, and those council fathers who insisted on denouncing Communism were gently invited to be seated and remain silent.’ (Father Paul Kramer, The Devil’s Final Battle, pp57) Documentation of this history is furnished also by Romano Amerio, *Iota Unum: 1985, pp65-67) *who writes that ‘the initiative for the meetings was taken personally by John 23 at the suggestion of Cardinal Montini, and Tisserant ‘received his formal orders, both for the signing of the accord and overseeing its exact execution during the Council.” P198

I am reminded of this extraordinary admonition that Padre Pio is said to have made public to his spiritual brothers in 1963, where he speaks of Fatima and of the tears of Madonna. It provokes much reflection precisely in reference to the Metz Pact and the Madonna of Syracuse: ‘Because of the spreading injustice and the abuse of power, we have arrived a t a compromise with atheistic materialism, denying the rights of God. This is the chastisement preannounced at Fatima …]. All of the priests who maintain the possibility of a dialogue with the deniers of God and with the Luciferian powers of the world are mad, they have lost the faith, they no longer believe in the Gospel! They thus betray the Word of God, because Christ came to bring ot earth a perpetual alliance only with men of good will, but not ally Himself with men thirsty for power and domination over their brothers…The flock is dispersed when the pastors ally themselves with enemies of the Truth of Christ. All of the forms of power made deaf to the will and authority of the heart of God are rapacious wolves who renew the Passion of Christ and cause the tears of the Madonna to pour forth.’ (Advenire, August 19, 1978).

 

[Through_Him]

But She came also to exalt the power of simple Christians and to appeal to them. It is often said that thanks to Vatican II the place of the laity was recognized in a Church that up until then had been suffocated by clericalism. But if the Council created a dispute over rules and power, clericalism has, however remained. And it is not understood that it was precisely the Madonna, well before the Council, who pointed out the road at Fatima: something more revolutionary—in the church totally centered on priests and hierarchal power—by the mother of God appearing to lay people, indeed to three children who, apart from Lucia, had not even made their First Communion, as was the case with Bernadette Soubirous of Lourdes? And the Queen of heaven and of earth called precisely them to the highest of missions, to exercise, therefore, the power for which we are qualified by a simple Baptism, which transforms every human being into ‘priest, king and prophet.’ P221

I quite agree with you but how do we find a middle ground?
For example, I have an aunt that had twins, she was obedient and went on to have 13 kids love them all and love the church and husband, but one twin was still born and not allowed a Catholic burial. I’m not sure what happened to the baby. And another had a friend’s mother had a baby stillborn but not allowed to be burried in the family plot at Catholic cemetary so burried in the protestant. I see the priests today allowing this and just going ahead with compassion and allowed my friends husband to have a funeral mass even though not Catholic. Our priests have compassion. This is what should be addressed. Another council could iron out all the extreme rules and make for an even more compassionate and still be traditional but not inquistion act type, rules. The problems that have come up over the past 40 years needs to be worked at and discussed just like anyone would reorganize, a team, a league, a government. There may be more children in the future or now that have been touched by visions. We do see much more place in the laity, for the work of the church but do not like to call it a power. Do you agree?

 

[Shoshana]

I quite agree with you but how do we find a middle ground?
For example, I have an aunt that had twins, she was obedient and went on to have 13 kids love them all and love the church and husband, but one twin was still born and not allowed a Catholic burial. I’m not sure what happened to the baby. And another had a friend’s mother had a baby stillborn but not allowed to be burried in the family plot at Catholic cemetary so burried in the protestant. I see the priests today allowing this and just going ahead with compassion and allowed my friends husband to have a funeral mass even though not Catholic. Our priests have compassion. This is what should be addressed. Another council could iron out all the extreme rules and make for an even more compassionate and still be traditional but not inquistion act type, rules. The problems that have come up over the past 40 years needs to be worked at and discussed just like anyone would reorganize, a team, a league, a government. There may be more children in the future or now that have been touched by visions. We do see much more place in the laity, for the work of the church but do not like to call it a power. Do you agree?

Hi! This is a quote from the book by Socci. Maybe the word ‘empower’?

 

[QuisUtDeus72]

giuseppeTO: THANK YOU for getting the word out on this! I’ve been praying and searching for a fresh analysis on the subject, preferably from someone on the inside and close to official sources. Archbishop Lefebvre raised some very valid points in his Open Letter to Confused Catholics that, frankly, I haven’t found satisfactory answers to yet…

 

[John_Larocque]

The victory of Protestantism within Roman Catholicism? Is this not already an apocalyptic event? And the sign of this Protestant victory was precisely the hostility (Pelegian, modernist, and activist) against Mary which was manifested during the Council and in the post-conciliar Church. It is also seen in the hostility to Fatima and the hard-fought battle which had been waged against the recognition of our Lady’s titles—Mediatrix of All Graces and Co-Redemptrix—which springs forth from all Catholic Tradition. Yet, in the tempest of the post-conciliar period, only one thing has descended into crisis: the Marian sanctuaries which represented the lifeboat for rescuing the faith and the people, so despised by theologians precisely because they are linked to Mary, ‘Help of Christians.’

Do you truly and honestly consider the future Pope Benedict’s views a “Protestant victory” against Our Lady?

I do not think there will be any compliance with this demand, which in the meantime is being supported by several million people, within the foreseeable future. The response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extant from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings.

…

Because Mary is the the prototype of the Church as such and is, so to say, the Church in person, this being “with” is realized in her in exemplary fashion. But this “with” must not lead us to forget the “first” of Christ: Everything comes from Him, as the letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything that she is through Him.

The word “Co-Redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention is being expressed in the wrong way. For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Do you truly and honestly consider the future Pope Benedict’s views a “Protestant victory” against Our Lady?

Do you truly and honestly consider the views of the protege of Karl Rahner to be perfectly unchanged with those of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI? It is reported that when Bl. Pius IX ascended the papal throne he was perceived as dangerously progressive, and it would seem that if such was the perception, there was a change from that to the man who published the Syllabus of Errors.

It seemed to me that Cardinal Ratzinger, without detracting from his schoolday master, had clearly reevaluated the fruits and interpretation of the Council. I had thought there was already a grand separation between Cardinal Ratzinger and the upstart fellow in suit and tie who was a periti for the German bishops at the Council. In any event, it seems unnecessary to consider the “future Pope Benedict’s views” with the same regard that we must in duty as Catholics, grant to our Holy Father’s views today.

I tend to agree with whoever wrote that the titles of Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces, while true, could represent a stumblingblock and be the occasion of misunderstanding. It might be prudent to wait. I am merely saying that there is no warrant for giving the same consideration to the views of future popes that we give to them after they have become pope.

 

[otjm]

If only priests were still made to take the Oath Against Modernism today. I know so many priests who would be unable to do so because they teach things clearly contrary. I am shocked that you actually think that modernist errors were not around during and after Vatican II. It seems today it’s rare to find a priest who is not infected to some degree or another.

Here is an excerpt from the Oath:

“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.”
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm

I have often heard priests and lay persons saying how “Vatican II changed things” and now “the Church no longer teaches…” x,y, and z. Now no one can commit a mortal sin, there’s no need to go to confession, and Jesus didn’t really rise bodily from the dead… the list goes on and on with the errors currently being taught by very many priests today. They mistakenly think that the Church can change her teachings or interpret them in a different way than how they have always meant.

No salvation outside the Church is a great example. The Church has always taught that the dogma means what it says and has never interpreted it as meaning “without the Church there is no salvation.” (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus) Extra in Latin means outside not without, which would be sine. The ancients knew what words they were using and knew what these words meant and explained their meanings. Hence we have the following explanations that you would never hear coming from a pope or bishop today: no-salvation-outside-the-church.blogspot.com/

Modernism has not affected the Church before, during, or after the Council??? Are you kidding me?

Obviously the irony was lost on you entirely.

You think priests would be unable to take the oath? Did you fall off the rutabaga truck as it rolled through the center of town? They took it before Vatican 2 was thought of and didn’t even blink; what makes you think they wouldn’t take it now?

You are shocked by my comments? That is because the whole comment sailed right over your head.

As to your comments about Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, you need to very carefyully follow what the Church teaches - and I am not saying what Father Goofball or Sister Liberal or any self-anointed individual outside the clerical and/or religious state spouts off about; I am talking about what the popes - last 4 to be exact - and the 2000+bishops in union with them taught and teach. I won’t sidetrack the thread with getting into that.

Has catechesis gone astray? For about 40 years. Have people who are true to the Magisterium been misquoted, quoted out of context, misunderstood etc? Absolutely. Are things getting back on track? Yes, but often slowly, and not in all areas to an equal degree.

Would making all priests take a vow against Modernism help? Not in the least; why, if they lied last time, do you think we would get any other results? What has changed that would guarantee more truthfulness now?

And while we are at it, can you give an accurate definition of Modernism? Because it is really an amalgam of a bunch of errors, truthfully you can’t. You can go look up a definition, but the definition itself is simply an amalgam. Modernism is too general a term, and is tied to a movement about a century and a half ago. It makes for a fantastic “boogeyman under the bed” to scare everyone, but is not particularly helpful when the probelms we have today are not identical with the problems of 150 years ago, are due to new and different sources than what was occuring 150 years ago, and are not even necessarily related. In other words, people can fall into similar errors from different causes; giving a label that is so broad as to defy succinct articulation is sloppy lazy thinking and analysis.

A tremendous source of the dissent and the attitude of dissent we have today is not about something sourcing 150 years ago starting with interpretation and study of Scripture, but rather sources to the phenomenal, widespread and almost instantaneous backlash to Humanae Vitae, which was not, in its essence, related to Scripture analysis of 100 years before. Outright defiance of the Pope’s encyclical was not sourced in Modernism; it was sourced in a world that believed, in large part at the time, that we were on a very short road to world disaster due to overpopulation; due to intrinsic human weakness that was showing itself in the rapid changes in society toward sexual activity (which started down that path significantly in 1930) and research that had invented a new means of birth control that to many looked to be entirely different than previous means in its very nature (it wasn’t). The explosion wasn’t just a group of theologians and bishops; it was the people in the pews. People raised on the Baltimore catechism and Church teachings. Not modernistic theories.

 

[una_fides]

As to your comments about Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, you need to very carefyully follow what the Church teaches - and I am not saying what Father Goofball or Sister Liberal or any self-anointed individual outside the clerical and/or religious state spouts off about; I am talking about what the popes - last 4 to be exact - and the 2000+bishops in union with them taught and teach. I won’t sidetrack the thread with getting into that.

otjm,
I have studied these things to a great extent. If you have studied what the popes and bishops have been teaching in the past 40 years, then I strongly suggest studying what they were teaching prior and what theologians were also teaching prior to that point and compare and see if you get the same thing or if you get something that sounds quite different entirely, as if some new revelation were achieved at V2 that now people outside the Church can be saved. Again let’s not get off track, but I wouldn’t mind continuing this conversation by PM if you’re up for it.

Would making all priests take a vow against Modernism help? Not in the least; why, if they lied last time, do you think we would get any other results? What has changed that would guarantee more truthfulness now?

Taking the Oath Against Modernism helped keep the modernists at bay and let them know what the Church clearly taught. Now, the Church’s documents are vague! Now modernists are very easily able to interpret them to mean something different than what the Church has always taught. Not only that, but it’s also very difficult to reconcile some of these vague teachings with the constant teachings of the Magisterium for the 2000 years prior. Religious liberty is one you can try to wrap your mind around along with the others I’ve already mentioned.

 

[una_fides]

And while we are at it, can you give an accurate definition of Modernism? Because it is really an amalgam of a bunch of errors, truthfully you can’t. You can go look up a definition, but the definition itself is simply an amalgam. Modernism is too general a term, and is tied to a movement about a century and a half ago. It makes for a fantastic “boogeyman under the bed” to scare everyone, but is not particularly helpful when the probelms we have today are not identical with the problems of 150 years ago, are due to new and different sources than what was occuring 150 years ago, and are not even necessarily related. In other words, people can fall into similar errors from different causes; giving a label that is so broad as to defy succinct articulation is sloppy lazy thinking and analysis.

A tremendous source of the dissent and the attitude of dissent we have today is not about something sourcing 150 years ago starting with interpretation and study of Scripture, but rather sources to the phenomenal, widespread and almost instantaneous backlash to Humanae Vitae, which was not, in its essence, related to Scripture analysis of 100 years before. Outright defiance of the Pope’s encyclical was not sourced in Modernism; it was sourced in a world that believed, in large part at the time, that we were on a very short road to world disaster due to overpopulation; due to intrinsic human weakness that was showing itself in the rapid changes in society toward sexual activity (which started down that path significantly in 1930) and research that had invented a new means of birth control that to many looked to be entirely different than previous means in its very nature (it wasn’t). The explosion wasn’t just a group of theologians and bishops; it was the people in the pews. People raised on the Baltimore catechism and Church teachings. Not modernistic theories.

Your denial of the errors of modernism plaguing the priesthood today does not change its existence. You obviously seem to have something against admitting the existence of modernism today. Yes, modernism contains many false teachings and as such is labeled “the heresy of heresies” because it ultimately comprises at its core a denial of the absolute, immutable, and un-alterable truth. The modernist attitude is one that denies absolute truth and believes instead that dogmas can evolve and change to fit with modern sensibilities. You see so much of that today: the interpreting of dogmas trying to make them say something that the Church has never before said they mean and interpret them in a contrary way. All the other errors of modernism seem to share this same root. You will hear them say that dogmas “evolve” and change over time and that the Church must change in order to fit with the times.

There is nothing new under the son. These things have been denied before and condemned and suppressed and have now been let loose. Honestly, you are one of the first people I’ve heard say that modernism is not around today. You admit there has been poor catechesis. How so? Who was teaching it? Who was in charge of the catechesis? I’ve heard a liberal priest admit that they were taught in seminaries to not teach the Catholic faith but instead to just teach people to live moral lives. Who dropped the ball? You claim it’s the laity that’s responsible, but I would have to disagree with you that the hierarchy is not to blame for it’s lack of discipline and vague teachings that have enabled the modernists to spread their errors to the rest of the flock. At all the liberal parishes I attended, the laity would say that Fr. so and so said that Scripture should not be taken literally and that it contains errors and that Fr. so and so says that there is no such thing as the devil or demons, etc, etc. These teachings are coming from the hierarchy. That’s clear as day that the ignorant laity is not just coming up with these things on their own. They’re getting it from the priests who tell them that the Church no longer teaches things like that people can commit mortal sins. “That’s a teaching from the old Church,” my deacon informed the RCIA class. “I don’t think anyone here could ever possibly commit a mortal sin.” Give me a break! Open your eyes and see the lies that have taken hold of the priesthood everywhere. Try finding parishes not infected with liturgical abuses. It’s a very rare thing now-a-days. They commit mortal sins as they make Christ present at the altar and disgrace his holy Name. I could go on and on, but I hope you get the point that the laity received the infection from their priests.

 

[Shoshana]

Your denial of the errors of modernism plaguing the priesthood today does not change its existence. You obviously seem to have something against admitting the existence of modernism today. Yes, modernism contains many false teachings and as such is labeled “the heresy of heresies” because it ultimately comprises at its core a denial of the absolute, immutable, and un-alterable truth. The modernist attitude is one that denies absolute truth and believes instead that dogmas can evolve and change to fit with modern sensibilities. You see so much of that today: the interpreting of dogmas trying to make them say something that the Church has never before said they mean and interpret them in a contrary way. All the other errors of modernism seem to share this same root. You will hear them say that dogmas “evolve” and change over time and that the Church must change in order to fit with the times.

There is nothing new under the son. These things have been denied before and condemned and suppressed and have now been let loose. Honestly, you are one of the first people I’ve heard say that modernism is not around today. You admit there has been poor catechesis. How so? Who was teaching it? Who was in charge of the catechesis? I’ve heard a liberal priest admit that they were taught in seminaries to not teach the Catholic faith but instead to just teach people to live moral lives. Who dropped the ball? You claim it’s the laity that’s responsible, but I would have to disagree with you that the hierarchy is not to blame for it’s lack of discipline and vague teachings that have enabled the modernists to spread their errors to the rest of the flock. At all the liberal parishes I attended, the laity would say that Fr. so and so said that Scripture should not be taken literally and that it contains errors and that Fr. so and so says that there is no such thing as the devil or demons, etc, etc. These teachings are coming from the hierarchy. That’s clear as day that the ignorant laity is not just coming up with these things on their own. They’re getting it from the priests who tell them that the Church no longer teaches things like that people can commit mortal sins. “That’s a teaching from the old Church,” my deacon informed the RCIA class. “I don’t think anyone here could ever possibly commit a mortal sin.” Give me a break! Open your eyes and see the lies that have taken hold of the priesthood everywhere. Try finding parishes not infected with liturgical abuses. It’s a very rare thing now-a-days. They commit mortal sins as they make Christ present at the altar and disgrace his holy Name. I could go on and on, but I hope you get the point that the laity received the infection from their priests.

You are right…and here is a quote from the pope and how he blames himself and all hierarchy for the sins of the church:

It was Pope Adrian VI, the last non-Italian Pope before John Paul 2, who formulated a courageous me culpa that provides an interpretive key to the subsequent events quite consonant with that which the Madonna will utter at Fatima. The protestant ‘bomb’ had exploded and, addressing himself in 1523 to the delegates to the Imperial Diet meeting at Nuremburg, he declared: ‘We freely acknowledge that God has permitted this persecution of the church because of the sins of men, and in particular of priests and prelates. The hand of God has not, in fact, been withdrawn; He could save us; but sin separates us from Him and prevents him from hearing us. All of Sacred Scripture teaches us that the errors of the people have their own origin in the errors of the clergy…We know that for many years abominations have been committed even in the Holt See: trafficking in sacred things, transgression of the commandments in such measure that everything is turned into scandal. One should not be surprised that the sickness has descended from the head to the members, from the popes to the prelates. All of us, prelates and ecclesiastics, have strayed from the path of justice. For a long time no one has pursued the good. For this reason all of us must honor god and humble ourselves before Him. Each one of us must examine himself to see in what way he has fallen short, and must examine himself much more severely than will God on the day of His wrath. We must all consider ourselves committed to do this because the entire world thirst for reform.’ The Fourth Secret, Socci, P212

 

[otjm]

otjm,
I have studied these things to a great extent. If you have studied what the popes and bishops have been teaching in the past 40 years, then I strongly suggest studying what they were teaching prior and what theologians were also teaching prior to that point and compare and see if you get the same thing or if you get something that sounds quite different entirely, as if some new revelation were achieved at V2 that now people outside the Church can be saved. Again let’s not get off track, but I wouldn’t mind continuing this conversation by PM if you’re up for it.

I have read what the Church has taught about the issue. I am well aware that individuals have distorted the Church’s teaching; but that does not equate with a removal of the document from Vatican 2; it equates with the Church reiterating what it taught in Vatican 2, as both Pope John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 have repeatedly said, “In light of the teaching of the church for 2000 years”. Some of the distortions surrounding this issue have come from the far right as well as the left. Some people will not be satisified with the Church teaching no matter how well it is explicated; the term Feeneyites applies. I don’t want to derail the thread. Let’s leave it at that.

Taking the Oath Against Modernism helped keep the modernists at bay and let them know what the Church clearly taught. Now, the Church’s documents are vague! Now modernists are very easily able to interpret them to mean something different than what the Church has always taught. Not only that, but it’s also very difficult to reconcile some of these vague teachings with the constant teachings of the Magisterium for the 2000 years prior. Religious liberty is one you can try to wrap your mind around along with the others I’ve already mentioned.

Reinstating the oath will have as much impact as the mandatum has had. Those who support the oath will take it (and they didn’t need it, and it won’t be a benefit to anyone else when they take it); the rest will either sidestep the issue or take it as did those prior to Vatican 2 who took it and a) didn’t mean it; b) didn’t understand it; c) couldn’t care less; d) outright lied; e) whatever else.

Rome does not micromanage the Church; and it never did. They have never excommunicated (pro actively) all who may have been deserving it, nor even a large minority. In the past when someone got excommunicated, extremely few had any clue as to what went on before that, so the “talk” (idle chatter) about how the Church has gone from “enforcement” to “concilliation” (or whatever disparaging term may be put in here for working with someone who has strayed in an attempt to get them to correct their positions) is essentially irrelevant.

The point I am trying to make is that there are a vast number of individuals out there who are Catholic and are either priests, theologians, or both. Rome has neither the manpower, the time nor the ability to micromanage each and every one of them, or even a lot of them. And the bishops have their own set of problems: they may be on the outer limits or somewhat beyond them; they may not be trained enough in a given area to be able to deal with it; they may not even be aware of it; and their staff suffers from the same issues.

And that is simply the reality. It is only the most egregious of examples that get treated; and they don’t get treated the way a number of people in the pews think they should. And the bottom line is that we can be chock full of opinions as to how it should be done, and when the day ends, we don’t wear our collar backwards - i.e. it is not our responsiblity.

To put it not too bluntly: Pope Benedict 16 has had at least one if not more private meetings with Hans Kung since becoming Pope. They were (are) contemporaries. There is no question that Kung has crossed the line long ago. The meeting was not because he has been rehabilitated, nor because he was heading for more correction; it was because in spite of their differences and his straying, they are still friends. Some people simply cannot put their minds around that. But5 that reflects much more how the Church approaches these issues than people want to believe or accept.

 

[otjm]

Your denial of the errors of modernism plaguing the priesthood today does not change its existence. You obviously seem to have something against admitting the existence of modernism today. Yes, modernism contains many false teachings and as such is labeled “the heresy of heresies” because it ultimately comprises at its core a denial of the absolute, immutable, and un-alterable truth. The modernist attitude is one that denies absolute truth and believes instead that dogmas can evolve and change to fit with modern sensibilities.

I have not “denied the errors of modernism”. I have said that labeling errors with the source “modernism” is sloppy thinking, a failure to determine how the errors occured, and misuses a term that in and of itself is so broad as to bring little or no useful information to the table. Given the vagueness of the definition of “modernism”, we could simply call almost all past heresies as “modernism” because the defintion of “modernism” is vague enough to encompass almost all of them. When a definition becomes that vague, it is no longer helpful; further, it becomes a code word rather than something that can be clearly and succinctly addressed. In addition, it ends up being applied to any error willy nilly, never mind the source of the error is entirely something else.

There is nothing new under the son. These things have been denied before and condemned and suppressed and have now been let loose.

Any study of the last 150 years would indicate that the term “suppressed” is less than accurate.

Honestly, you are one of the first people I’ve heard say that modernism is not around today.

I said there are permutations of errors. Calling that "modernism’ helps no one at understanding what the errors are and how they have occured. Jansenism is not absolutley and entirely dead; but the remnants might better be dealt with by trying to understand how that initial error has devolved, as what we have today is not strictly the issues dealt with when that was first identified.

You admit there has been poor catechesis. How so? Who was teaching it? Who was in charge of the catechesis? I’ve heard a liberal priest admit that they were taught in seminaries to not teach the Catholic faith but instead to just teach people to live moral lives.

Catechesis moved away from a doctrinal approach (e.g. the Baltimore Catechism) for a variety of reasons. Simply labeling that due to ‘modernism’ does absolutely nothing to further the discussion as it presumes it was done based on a premise that “doctrines evolve”. One of the reasons it was done was because there was a feeling (not entirely unsupported) that the Gospels do not teach us doctrine; they teach us how to live with one another so as to achieve heaven. The Gospels are the foundation of doctrine, but Christ said that He came “that you may have life, and have it abundantly”. There was a widespread feeling that people knew “information” but that didn’t get translated into how to live.

Who dropped the ball? You claim it’s the laity that’s responsible, but I would have to disagree with you that the hierarchy is not to blame for it’s lack of discipline and vague teachings

Most of the laity at the beginning of Vatican 2 were not highly educated in their faith; and if not most didn’t get much farther than an 8th grader’s understading, or at best, a senior in high school. And they are even less educated today doctrinally.

At all the liberal parishes I attended, the laity would say that Fr. so and so said that Scripture should not be taken literally and that it contains errors and that Fr. so and so says that there is no such thing as the devil or demons, etc, etc. These teachings are coming from the hierarchy.

and the hierarchy was poorly taught in the seminaries; and the seminary teachers were all ordained well before Vatican 2, …

“That’s a teaching from the old Church,” my deacon informed the RCIA class. “I don’t think anyone here could ever possibly commit a mortal sin.”

Information, and misinformation is now spread far, far more rapidly than it was 50 years ago; or for that matter, 30. Taking that one example, that is not completely removed from what the Church taught 100 years ago, nor today; but it is warped and over-extended. We were taught in school a very simple and simplistic 3 part definition of a mortal sin. It is simple and correct; but its application is not necessarily as simple or direct. And the Deacon would appear to not know very much moral theology, and has far, far over simplified a complex issue. That does not mean he was taught by a "modernist’, nor that his teacher was so taught; it is far more likely he was given an aextremely simplified short-cut explanation of a complex subject.

Give me a break! Open your eyes and see the lies that have taken hold of the priesthood everywhere. Try finding parishes not infected with liturgical abuses. It’s a very rare thing now-a-days.

It may be very rare where you are. It is not where I am. There are just under 19,000 parishes in the US. Get a grip; it is not as extensive as you would have it.

What I was trying to say is that “modernism” is an altogether too broad a paintbrush and it gets used every time someone speaks error. That simply is not a true statement or analysis of the problems we have. I have not said that the issues that staarted 150 years ago, give or take a couple of decades, are not making shockwaves still today. I am saying there is a whole lot of sloppy thinking, knee jerk analysis, and failure to examine why we have the probelms we have today.

Loisey has been dead since what - the 1950’s? And he wasn’t even a prolific author.

 

[una_fides]

I have read what the Church has taught about the issue. I am well aware that individuals have distorted the Church’s teaching; but that does not equate with a removal of the document from Vatican 2; it equates with the Church reiterating what it taught in Vatican 2, as both Pope John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 have repeatedly said, “In light of the teaching of the church for 2000 years”. Some of the distortions surrounding this issue have come from the far right as well as the left. Some people will not be satisified with the Church teaching no matter how well it is explicated; the term Feeneyites applies. I don’t want to derail the thread. Let’s leave it at that.

Trying to call me a Feeneyite demonstrates your ignorance of what Feeney taught. He denied baptism of desire, and this denial was what the Church condemned. I just posted something explaining the reality of baptism of desire, therefore, I could not possibly fit into that category. I love how those who try to reduce NSOC to a meaningless formula love to label anyone who tries to hold to the Traditional sense of the teaching as a disciple of Fr. Feeney. Your ignorance in this case does not seem to be invincible to say the least. Here is a blog that has a compilation of quotes that might help you understand how the Church has always understood this teaching: no-salvation-outside-the-church.blogspot.com/

Reinstating the oath will have as much impact as the mandatum has had. Those who support the oath will take it (and they didn’t need it, and it won’t be a benefit to anyone else when they take it); the rest will either sidestep the issue or take it as did those prior to Vatican 2 who took it and a) didn’t mean it; b) didn’t understand it; c) couldn’t care less; d) outright lied; e) whatever else.

You and I are just going to have to disagree on the effect the Oath would have if re-instituted today. I think at the very least it would help clear up this ambiguous nature of documents coming out that can be interpreted in so many different ways. Liberals run wild with this stuff. You need clear teaching condemning their errors to keep them in check so that when these errors arise the faithful can recognize them.

Rome does not micromanage the Church; and it never did. They have never excommunicated (pro actively) all who may have been deserving it, nor even a large minority. In the past when someone got excommunicated, extremely few had any clue as to what went on before that, so the “talk” (idle chatter) about how the Church has gone from “enforcement” to “concilliation” (or whatever disparaging term may be put in here for working with someone who has strayed in an attempt to get them to correct their positions) is essentially irrelevant.

The point I am trying to make is that there are a vast number of individuals out there who are Catholic and are either priests, theologians, or both. Rome has neither the manpower, the time nor the ability to micromanage each and every one of them, or even a lot of them. And the bishops have their own set of problems: they may be on the outer limits or somewhat beyond them; they may not be trained enough in a given area to be able to deal with it; they may not even be aware of it; and their staff suffers from the same issues.

I never said that Rome needed to micromanage anybody. What Rome needs to do is re-institute the Holy Office and call in those suspect of heresy and weed them out as she has done in the past. The leaders at the top need to be condemned–not promoted!

To put it not too bluntly: Pope Benedict 16 has had at least one if not more private meetings with Hans Kung since becoming Pope. They were (are) contemporaries. There is no question that Kung has crossed the line long ago. The meeting was not because he has been rehabilitated, nor because he was heading for more correction; it was because in spite of their differences and his straying, they are still friends. Some people simply cannot put their minds around that. But5 that reflects much more how the Church approaches these issues than people want to believe or accept.

Hans Kung is a manifest heretic as he openly denies papal infallibility yet he has never been excommunicated and still remains today a priest in good standing. On the other end of things, Pope JP2 made sure to excommunicate archbishop Lefebvre for ordaining bishops to continue the Traditional rite of the Church, which Lefebvre openly stated he was doing out of a necessity, which does not incur excommunication. Whose side are they on? B16 is friends w/ Hans Kung? I was just reading tonight at my Bible study the following:

2 Cor 6: 14-15 “what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?” 17 Wherefore: Go out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing:

Brings to mid the following:
Titus 3:10 A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: 11 Knowing that he that is such an one is subverted and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.

2 Thes 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed.

2 John 10-11 If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you. For he that saith unto him: God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.

I could dig up more verses, but I think you get the point. The pope should excommunicate him to send a signal to the rest of the Church that these teachings are not acceptable, and if one holds to them he is not Catholic.

Here is what the last pope Benedict had to say on this issue:
Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914:
Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). papalencyclicals.net/Ben15/b15adbea.htm

 

[una_fides]

I have not “denied the errors of modernism”. I have said that labeling errors with the source “modernism” is sloppy thinking, a failure to determine how the errors occured, and misuses a term that in and of itself is so broad as to bring little or no useful information to the table. Given the vagueness of the definition of “modernism”, we could simply call almost all past heresies as “modernism” because the defintion of “modernism” is vague enough to encompass almost all of them. When a definition becomes that vague, it is no longer helpful; further, it becomes a code word rather than something that can be clearly and succinctly addressed. In addition, it ends up being applied to any error willy nilly, never mind the source of the error is entirely something else.

I will concede that it’s possible that at times people could wrongly label something as modernism when it is really another heresy that can be labeled more specifically, but those who do so are most likely not well read on what modernism actually is. Have you read all the documents on modernism and would you say that you understand them? If not, perhaps you should read and study them and read some orthodox theologians writings on the subject so that you can be able to distinguish modernism at its core and foundation, which I explained earlier seems to me to be entirely rooted in this idea of change and a denial of the absolute and immutable nature of truth.

Catechesis moved away from a doctrinal approach (e.g. the Baltimore Catechism) for a variety of reasons.

“A variety of reasons” like what? Can you explain why a doctrinal approach should now be avoided when the Church has used that approach for 2000 years?

Simply labeling that due to ‘modernism’ does absolutely nothing to further the discussion as it presumes it was done based on a premise that “doctrines evolve”. One of the reasons it was done was because there was a feeling (not entirely unsupported) that the Gospels do not teach us doctrine; they teach us how to live with one another so as to achieve heaven. The Gospels are the foundation of doctrine, but Christ said that He came “that you may have life, and have it abundantly”. There was a widespread feeling that people knew “information” but that didn’t get translated into how to live. Most of the laity at the beginning of Vatican 2 were not highly educated in their faith; and if not most didn’t get much farther than an 8th grader’s understading, or at best, a senior in high school. ** And they are even less educated today doctrinally**. and the hierarchy was poorly taught in the seminaries; and the seminary teachers were all ordained well before Vatican 2, …

So obviously this new approach to not teach people doctrine doesn’t work! They do not even know their faiths. You would think that having the Mass in the vernacular would have produced more people to actually understand what it is the priest is saying and what is taking place at Mass, but the exact opposite has happened! Bring back the Latin and the good solid doctrinal catechesis! You will have reverence and will greatly reduce the number of people who think it’s okay to be “liberal” or “cafeteria” Catholics.

Information, and misinformation is now spread far, far more rapidly than it was 50 years ago; or for that matter, 30. Taking that one example, that is not completely removed from what the Church taught 100 years ago, nor today; but it is warped and over-extended. We were taught in school a very simple and simplistic 3 part definition of a mortal sin. It is simple and correct; but its application is not necessarily as simple or direct. And the Deacon would appear to not know very much moral theology, and has far, far over simplified a complex issue. That does not mean he was taught by a "modernist’, nor that his teacher was so taught; it is far more likely he was given an aextremely simplified short-cut explanation of a complex subject.

It becomes more and more “complex” the more and more one tries to explain away mortal sin and try to say that it is so rare. If mortal sin is so rare, then why did Christ bother to come and die to save us? Save us from what? These modernists think we are all already practically saints as long as we don’t kill anyone. And yes I used the word “modernists” because that’s what they are! They are saying “the Church no longer teaches that” she now teaches this… That is modernism plain and simple. Can you please tell me what other heretical category that would fall under? It’s certainly not Arianism.

It may be very rare where you are. It is not where I am. There are just under 19,000 parishes in the US. Get a grip; it is not as extensive as you would have it.

How many of the 19k parishes have you visited? How can you make such an assertion that it’s not as extensive as I am saying? Perhaps you don’t know what liturgical abuse is to be able to spot it when you see it.

What I was trying to say is that “modernism” is an altogether too broad a paintbrush and it gets used every time someone speaks error. That simply is not a true statement or analysis of the problems we have. I have not said that the issues that staarted 150 years ago, give or take a couple of decades, are not making shockwaves still today. I am saying there is a whole lot of sloppy thinking, knee jerk analysis, and failure to examine why we have the probelms we have today.

I agree there has been a whole lot of sloppy thinking. There has also been a whole lot of sloppy writing that has implored very vague wording and language that I don’t see how it is not being used intentionally so as to not isolate those who disagree or offend anyone. I’m sorry but the truth hurts, and you must either formulate your mind to what is true or reject it. You cannot try to play both sides. Is Scripture inerrant or isn’t it? Does everyone have religious liberty to follow the true religion or any religion? Is there no salvation outside the Church or is there salvation outside the Church? Is the Catholic Church the Church of Christ or does it only contain the Church of Christ, which also includes those outside the Church?

These issues are being so easily distorted all due to vague wording that leaves you wondering what does the Church really teach today. Is she teaching contrary to what she has for 2000 years or is she just using very confusing and vague wording so that people can easily interpret that she is? C’mon. You’ve got to see these things. They are right in front of you.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

I agree there has been a whole lot of sloppy thinking. There has also been a whole lot of sloppy writing that has implored very vague wording and language that I don’t see how it is not being used intentionally so as to not isolate those who disagree or offend anyone. I’m sorry but the truth hurts, and you must either formulate your mind to what is true or reject it. You cannot try to play both sides. Is Scripture inerrant or isn’t it? Does everyone have religious liberty to follow the true religion or any religion? Is there no salvation outside the Church or is there salvation outside the Church? Is the Catholic Church the Church of Christ or does it only contain the Church of Christ, which also includes those outside the Church?

One of the tenets of modernism according to Dietrich Von Hildebrand is the Hegelian notion of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, that is, the truth is between two extremes. Also modernist is the notion that if A is wrong then B must be right. These come from human workings and compromise that is fine when applied to politics or friendship, a modern epoch as opposed to the “nation states” and kingdoms that preceded this, but is not a way of coming to the truth. The above highlighted falls into the either/or scenario. Vat II doesn’t agree with Vat I so Vat II is wrong seems to be what previous posts of yours I have seen show. This is an observation, not an attack. I could be wrong.

The problem is in the fact we do not have complete truth. Until heaven, we have only incomplete truth that must necessarily be left to the Church with the Holy Spirit to ascertain more fully. This is usually done by responding to heresy, but with Vat II it was a response to the bureaucracy and legalism that humans in their fallen state bring to institutions. Reform of the institution, not doctrine, was Vat II according to Von Hildebrand. Getting away from the legalism of denying all of Islam based on that which is untrue in it and embracing what is true in it as a means of evangelizing is the same as St Paul did at the meeting of the Areopagus in Acts 17:22.

Just because some don’t have the full, unwavering faith to keep from falling into error by those who may or may not have nefarious plans, modernism, doesn’t mean we build the wall of legalism anew and hunker down into a us vs. them, with us or against us type of institution. Catholics who stray need to be evangelized in love too, not condemned until they either accept or reject. Either-or again. This is where I think this method may be wrong. I am not attacking you, I may be wrong and I too don’t have the full truth, I just think the Church still does, Vat II included.

 

[otjm]

Trying to call me a Feeneyite demonstrates your ignorance of what Feeney taught.

Calm down, it wasn’t referenced to you. I am assuming that you do not take a position more rigorous than the Church does. There are in the general discussion, however, people who do. I am not ignorant, but you are pretty quick on the trigger. Slow down, take a deep breath, read what I actually say, and we will be able to have an intelligent conversation. Read what I actually say, not what you want to think I say because you presume that you and I are in opposition.

You and I are just going to have to disagree on the effect the Oath would have if re-instituted today. I think at the very least it would help clear up this ambiguous nature of documents coming out that can be interpreted in so many different ways. Liberals run wild with this stuff. You need clear teaching condemning their errors to keep them in check so that when these errors arise the faithful can recognize them.

As I said, given that they lied before (and I think there are people in Rome who just possibly may have figured this out - it isn’t exactly rocket science) and given that the Mandatum was a screaming, laughing, crying, roaring flop of the first order, the likelyhood that it will be reinstituted is less than the likelyhood that we will all be required to go back to “outdoor plumbing”. Rome has enough to do to try to ride herd on the issue already on their plate. There never has been a time where excommunication was wielded to eliminate each an every scandalous and/or heretical individual; the process takes years, not months or weeks; there are not enough tribunals to handle the number that would use them (giving even more years to the process if there were); the number of priests that would effectively be eliminated would go beyond crippling the Church and the Church’s first issue is not the teaching, but the administration of the sacraments, which Sacramental Theology holds that a heretic can do in spite of his position, say, on ABC.

In short, it ain’t a gonna happen, and dwelling on it is at the level of day dreaming. I would prefer to be more practical.

I never said that Rome needed to micromanage anybody. What Rome needs to do is re-institute the Holy Office and call in those suspect of heresy and weed them out as she has done in the past. The leaders at the top need to be condemned–not promoted!

And as I suggested here, that amounts to day dreaming.

Hans Kung is a manifest heretic as he openly denies papal infallibility yet he has never been excommunicated and still remains today a priest in good standing. On the other end of things, Pope JP2 made sure to excommunicate archbishop Lefebvre for ordaining bishops to continue the Traditional rite of the Church, which Lefebvre openly stated he was doing out of a necessity, which does not incur excommunication. Whose side are they on? B16 is friends w/ Hans Kung?

The pope should excommunicate him to send a signal to the rest of the Church that these teachings are not acceptable, and if one holds to them he is not Catholic.

As I noted, there are a whole lot of faithful who simply do not understand why and how Rome works they way they do. Not only has B 16 not excommunicated him, but neither did the last three popes. Granted JP 1 only had a month to do it… there is an element of the faithful whose reaction is similar to the Red Queen: “Off with their heads!”. The Pope is not the Red Queen, obviously.

Not directly related, but the news is that we just had a bishop step down, and the short explanation has been “physical exhaustion”. What seems to be the general reading was not that he was unwilling to uphold the Church’s teaching (he seemed to be spot-on about issues of abortion and politicians being denied Communion), but that he did not have the ability to lead; he was apparently causing more chaos by the way he responded to these and related issues than he was in making any headway on them.

One can come in swinging, and there is certainly an element of visceral response (right on!) to such. But that all too often wins the battle and loses the war.

Part of the problem is that when you are in the mud up to your hips, it is hard to see that the overall problem is changing, as one can only see the immediate mud. Change will be gradual, and it will occur over a longer period of time than we want. For example, the liturgical silliness that has pervaded the OF since the late 60’s is dying off if for no other reason than that we are now two generations or more beyond the priests who first inrtoduced that. The newer priests today simply have other issues than those priests of the 60’s. The new group - often called the John Paul 2 priests - came into the priesthood inspired by the examples and preaching and teaching of JP2; they have listened to him and been inspired by him, not by some radical theologian who wants to reduce morality to situational ethics. They have studied Theology of the Body, and they get it; it has done for sexual morality what Vatican 2 wanted to do with the Church in general; take the 2000 year history, practices and teaching of the Church and bring them a fresh way of the what and why of the Church.

What we have had presented to us has not, in all too many circumstances, been authentic to the Church’s past. But we have new priests who are, and for that we should be excited. It won’t happen fast enough to suit those who want to see the craziness stop. But it will happen.

Something we seem to easily forget is that Christ came that all might be drawn to the Father. It should be clear in any reading that not all were, and he was not the least hesitant to take on those who persisted in stubborn sin. The Pharisees were teaching falsely, and he was very open about their falsity. But the very bottom line was that he did not come to send people to hell; he did not come to condemn falsehood but to lead to truth. Leading to truth involved making clear what was false; but the primary mission was leading to truth, not exposing falsehood. The Church’s primary mission is leading to truth; so when we do not perceive them as persuing all falsehood and “whacking heads off”, it is perhaps that we are wanting something that is not the primary mission. Both JP2 and B 16 have chosen the path of leading to truth; it is a gradual path, and one that can easily be lost sight of in the cacophony around us. But if we lose sight, if we fail to listen, if we grow impatient, if we want someone to proverbially stand up and shout “SHUT UP!” instead of quietly but firmly speaking the truth, is the fault with them?

Or with us?