No more "Yaweh"

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
Well – if its upsetting the “Spirit of Vat II” --its a sign the Pope is leading the Church in the right direction.

So is that all that matters to some here? “Upsetting the Spirit of Vatican II”? It sure seems that way. How sad.

---

Gee–you sound a tad annoyed at the thought that the “Spirit of Vat II” is being upset.

 

[snhs]

So is that all that matters to some here? “Upsetting the Spirit of Vatican II”? It sure seems that way. How sad.

The ‘Spirit of VII’ has been profoundly disruptive for a lot of people in the Church, actions taken in its name have caused many to abandon the faith and many more to continue in it while being hurt and adversely affected by them. What matters isn’t upsetting the ‘Spirit of VII’ but eradicating it completely, at least in so far as the ‘Spirit of VII’ represents the excesses which have taken place in the name of the Council despite being against what the Council actually said.

What you don’t seem to realise is that there are different perceptions of the ‘Spirit of VII’, you might think it’s the best think since the Resurrection but for a lot of people its been one of the most damaging influences on the Church in generations.

What should be guiding the Church isn’t the ‘Spirit’ of a Council but the Holy Spirit and it should be that which guides the decisions taken by the Church. This example is just one case where the two are at odds, where the ‘Spirit of VII’ would have the Church lead in the opposite direction to the Holy Spirit which guides the Pope and guided the work of the Council itself. I have full confidence that Pope Benedict is able to separate the two and will continue to make the right decisions.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

snhs;

What should be guiding the Church isn’t the ‘Spirit’ of a Council but the Holy Spirit and it should be that which guides the decisions taken by the Church.

Well I believe it was the Holy Spirit who guided the Cardinals to elect Pope John XXIII and it is the Holy Spirit who inspired him to call the Vatican II council.

I’m more inclined to believe the guidance of the Holy Spirit coming out of a council, than an individual Pope, who could possibly be a lunatic who would undue what the council founded.

Through the history of the Church, there have been bad popes, who have made bad decisions that were very damaging to the Church.Were they guided by the Holy Spirit?

Now, I’m not saying Pope Benedict is a bad pope, nor am I saying he’s not following the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but your statement that the Bishops since Vatican II, have not, I do not agree with.

It is my belief, that the Holy Spirit guided the Bishops of Vatican II, and do so to protect the Catholic Church from the gates of hell.

Today the fires of hell are threatening the church more than ever.

Is Pope Benedict truly protecting the Church, or fueling the flames?

I pray its the former, but directives like this one, are concerning.

Jim

 

[benedictgal]

So is that all that matters to some here? “Upsetting the Spirit of Vatican II”? It sure seems that way. How sad.

How can you update something that was already going downhill? The problem has never been with the documents. It’s the “Spirit of Vatican II” that got everyone into this mess, not the Council.

 

[snhs]

snhs;

Well I believe it was the Holy Spirit who guided the Cardinals to elect Pope John XXIII and it is the Holy Spirit who inspired him to call the Vatican II council.

I’m more inclined to believe the guidance of the Holy Spirit coming out of a council, than an individual Pope, who could possibly be a lunatic who would undue what the council founded.

Through the history of the Church, there have been bad popes, who have made bad decisions that were very damaging to the Church.Were they guided by the Holy Spirit?

Now, I’m not saying Pope Benedict is a bad pope, nor am I saying he’s not following the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but your statement that the Bishops since Vatican II, have not, I do not agree with.

It is my belief, that the Holy Spirit guided the Bishops of Vatican II, and do so to protect the Catholic Church from the gates of hell.

Today the fires of hell are threatening the church more than ever.

Is Pope Benedict truly protecting the Church, or fueling the flames?

I pray its the former, but directives like this one, are concerning.

And it was the Holy Spirit which guided the Council. The ‘Spirit of VII’ is an artificial construct which as we’ve seen can be at odds with the workings of the Holy Spirit as seen through the Pope and teachings/work of the Church. For example, the ‘Spirit of VII’ would never have liberated the TLM, but Pope Benedict XVI guided by the Holy Spirit did.

You are getting rather close to implying that the Holy Father is a lunatic. And Pope Benedict is not undoing any part of the Council, he was intimately involved with the work of the Council, was one of the theologians at that Council.

We may have had bad Popes, however I don’t recall any of the other Councils being invoked by their ‘Spirit’ as a Council as opposed to by the Holy Spirit which guided their deliberations and writings. The writings of the Council are what we should look to for guidance, not some ghostly spirit which often has no significant basis in what the Second Vatican Council decided.

You’re just quite happy implying he might be a lunatic, I suppose . Every time the Spirit of VII is invoked, in every decision in which it is clearly present we see a failing to follow what we should. For example, in ncjohn’s earlier post which some were so quick to endorse, with comments such as “Fantastic thoughts and post!” and, your own, “well said!”, there was not a single quote from a Vatican II document, not a single source, yet every second or third paragraph we were hearing about how VII wanted this and this is why the Pope’s decision is wrong.

Have I challenged the validity of VII at any time? Have I ever said that the actual works of the Council itself were in some way not guided by the Holy Spirit?

Indeed, and part of that threat is from false ideals which are not true to the will of the Holy Spirit, which threaten to lead the Church down the wrong path and away from truth.

To you, to the ‘Spirit of VII’ crew it is, I’m sure, very concerning. You still fail to realise that the VII Council which you idolise had as one of its theologians the current Pope. He knows the documents of VII vastly better than you or I, or any of these people who may come out declaiming how he threatens the legacy of the Council by his actions. To be frank if he doesn’t know what the Council actually wanted and concluded then there are incredibly few people left who do.

What is concerning is that the same kind of people who, 40 years ago, were joyfully imposing the ‘Spirit of VII’ on Parishes everywhere as opposed to the true will of Vatican II seem to think that any move to correct the excesses is in violation of Vatican II. It’s not, it never has been. What is in violation of VII is if anything the ‘Spirit of VII’, which seems to get far more recognition by its adherents than the Council itself ever has.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

snhs;

You are getting rather close to implying that the Holy Father is a lunatic.

I didn’t say that, please stop trying to twist what I said to fit your own agenda.

You’re just quite happy implying he might be a lunatic, I suppose

Apparently you’re carrying too much emotional baggage to have a constructive conversation on this issue.

In order to be cIear, I never implied that Pope Benedict is a lunatic.

Jim

 

[japhy]

Well I believe … it is the Holy Spirit who inspired [Pope John XXIII] to call the Vatican II council. I’m more inclined to believe the guidance of the Holy Spirit coming out of a council, than an individual Pope, who could possibly be a lunatic who would undo what the council founded.

I think there’s a double standard being employed there, but I could be wrong.

Today the fires of hell are threatening the church more than ever. Is Pope Benedict truly protecting the Church, or fueling the flames? I pray its the former, but directives like this one, are concerning.

Vatican II said nothing about derestricting use of YHWH, especially since it was concerned with the Church’s relationship with the Jews, who would generally be offended to hear the Name spoken out loud. I also don’t see how this directive could possibly endanger the Church. If anything, it is strengthening the Church’s resolve to be true to Her tradition and history.

 

[tee_eff_em]

[Apologies if this particular question has been addressed – I’ve not read the entire thread]

I’ve got a question.

I pray the Liturgy of the Hours in Latin regularly, and for Saturday of Week 1, the canticle from Exodus 15 presently reads, in the *editio typica altera *edition:

Dominus quasi vir pugnator;
Iahveh nomen eius!

Me too.

I wonder where this text comes from (My books do not say)? It is neither the Clementine Vulgate:
*Dominus quasi vir pugnator,

Omnipotens

nomen ejus*
nor the Nova Vulgata:
*Dominus quasi vir pugnator;

Dominus

nomen eius!*


tee

 

[snhs]

snhs;

I didn’t say that, please stop trying to twist what I said to fit your own agenda.

Apparently you’re carrying too much emotional baggage to have a constructive conversation on this issue.

In order to be cIear, I never implied that Pope Benedict is a lunatic.

Is it ‘emotional baggage’ to defend a legitimate decision by the Holy Father, to think he is mentally sound and to believe that rather more evidence is required to come to the contrary view than a few decisions someone doesn’t like?

You said, “I’m more inclined to believe the guidance of the Holy Spirit coming out of a council, than an individual Pope, who could possibly be a lunatic who would undue what the council founded.” (Bold added). Now “could possibly be a lunatic”, sounds to me like an implication. Going by your previous comments, for example, your response to ncjohn’s post where he wrote “I see it driving yet another artificial wedge and emphasizing a certain side of God to the exclusion of the other, a key reason behind what Vatican II brought in.”. You commented “well said!”, completely unqualified. So clearly you ascribe to ncjohn’s view that it is driving a wedge between the two sides of God, going against one of the reasons, which you apparently think, was behind VII.

So we have a Pope who issues a document which to you goes against what you see as one of the key reasons behind VII. You then tell us how you’d rather follow a Council than a Pope, who “might possibly be a lunatic”? Sounds like an implication to me, don’t know about anyone else though.

 

[Walking_Home]

snhs;

Well I believe it was the Holy Spirit who guided the Cardinals to elect Pope John XXIII and it is the Holy Spirit who inspired him to call the Vatican II council.

I’m more inclined to believe the guidance of the Holy Spirit coming out of a council, **than an individual Pope, who could possibly be a lunatic who would undue what the council founded. **

Through the history of the Church, there have been bad popes, who have made bad decisions that were very damaging to the Church.Were they guided by the Holy Spirit?

Now, I’m not saying Pope Benedict is a bad pope, nor am I saying he’s not following the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but your statement that the Bishops since Vatican II, have not, I do not agree with.

It is my belief, that the Holy Spirit guided the Bishops of Vatican II, and do so to protect the Catholic Church from the gates of hell.

Today the fires of hell are threatening the church more than ever.

Is Pope Benedict truly protecting the Church, **or fueling the flames? **

I pray its the former, but directives like this one, are concerning.

Jim

---

 

[ncjohn]

For example, the ‘Spirit of VII’ would never have liberated the TLM, but Pope Benedict XVI guided by the Holy Spirit did.

How totally ridiculous! Even if there was a “definition” of the “Spirit of Vatican II”, such “spirit” could not “liberate” anything, nor can you predict what a Pope guided by such “spirit” would do.

What proof could you possibly offer that this “liberation” was guided by the Holy Spirit? The fact that you approve of it does not dictate that the Holy Spirit guided it. And let me be clear that in saying that I am NOT saying that I think it was a bad idea. I don’t think we get to judge what non-infallible actions are or are not guided by the Spirit.

And Pope Benedict is not undoing any part of the Council, he was intimately involved with the work of the Council, was one of the theologians at that Council.

That is at the very least a debatable statement. It is quite clear from any serious study that the intent of the Council was to replace the EF, at least in its existing form, with something that promoted the active particpation of the congregation (not the passive “assisting” thrown around here so often). There is no indication whatsoever that it intended it as a parallel liturgy. As such this “liberation” of the EF would be very reasonably considered to be “undoing” part of the Council.

I am specifically NOT trying to instigate any debate on whether what we ended up with was good or bad or whether it is what the Fathers thought we would end up with. That has been beaten to death here. The only point to be made is that the intention was to replace the EF and that has been undone. (Again I will emphasize that I am not saying that it was a bad thing.)

All that being said, to bring this back to topic, I will repeat that I see this “Yahweh” directive at the very least having the effect of driving a wedge by trying to reemphasize the transcendent side of God at the expense of the personal side of God, reducing the balance that Vatican II worked hard to establish. This does not “correct” where some overdid things to the personal side, which simply reemphasizing the balance would have done, but effectively undoes that balance, whether that is an intended consequence or not. In doing so, as I said previously, we are again into promoting factions claiming “my God is better than your God” at a time when promoting unity and healing should be at the top of the agenda.

 

[Walking_Home]

How totally ridiculous! Even if there was a “definition” of the “Spirit of Vatican II”, such “spirit” could not “liberate” anything, nor can you predict what a Pope guided by such “spirit” would do.

What proof could you possibly offer that this “liberation” was guided by the Holy Spirit? The fact that you approve of it does not dictate that the Holy Spirit guided it. And let me be clear that in saying that I am NOT saying that I think it was a bad idea. I don’t think we get to judge what non-infallible actions are or are not guided by the Spirit.

That is at the very least a debatable statement. It is quite clear from any serious study that the intent of the Council was to replace the EF, at least in its existing form, with something that promoted the active particpation of the congregation (not the passive “assisting” thrown around here so often). There is no indication whatsoever that it intended it as a parallel liturgy. As such this “liberation” of the EF would be very reasonably considered to be “undoing” part of the Council.

I am specifically NOT trying to instigate any debate on whether what we ended up with was good or bad or whether it is what the Fathers thought we would end up with. That has been beaten to death here. The only point to be made is that the intention was to replace the EF and that has been undone. (Again I will emphasize that I am not saying that it was a bad thing.)

All that being said, to bring this back to topic, I will repeat that **I see this “Yahweh” directive at the very least having the effect of driving a wedge by trying to reemphasize the transcendent side of God at the expense of the personal side of God, reducing the balance that Vatican II worked hard to establish. **This does not “correct” where some overdid things to the personal side, which simply reemphasizing the balance would have done, but effectively undoes that balance, whether that is an intended consequence or not. In doing so, as I said previously, we are again into promoting factions claiming “my God is better than your God” at a time when promoting unity and healing should be at the top of the agenda.

quote=ncjohn
The fact is that we have “true God and true Man”, fully God and fully human. We cannot separate the two and any attempt to is heresy according to the Church. We have a God who is Creator, Redeemer, and King and a God who is Abba and who indwells each of us.

To me this is yet another pullback from Vatican II that is attempting to emphasize the transcendent “I AM” at the expense of Abba. Instead of bringing us to the necessary balance, I see the Church again trying to separate God, which results in nothing more than another “My God is better than your God” fight in the Church.

---

I am getting the implication from you have said —that you see the Pope’s actions as “separating” God. Along with this is the implication that the Pope is leading into heresy.

 

[snhs]

How totally ridiculous! Even if there was a “definition” of the “Spirit of Vatican II”, such “spirit” could not “liberate” anything, nor can you predict what a Pope guided by such “spirit” would do.

What proof could you possibly offer that this “liberation” was guided by the Holy Spirit? The fact that you approve of it does not dictate that the Holy Spirit guided it. And let me be clear that in saying that I am NOT saying that I think it was a bad idea. I don’t think we get to judge what non-infallible actions are or are not guided by the Spirit.

That is at the very least a debatable statement. It is quite clear from any serious study that the intent of the Council was to replace the EF, at least in its existing form, with something that promoted the active particpation of the congregation (not the passive “assisting” thrown around here so often). There is no indication whatsoever that it intended it as a parallel liturgy. As such this “liberation” of the EF would be very reasonably considered to be “undoing” part of the Council.

I am specifically NOT trying to instigate any debate on whether what we ended up with was good or bad or whether it is what the Fathers thought we would end up with. That has been beaten to death here. The only point to be made is that the intention was to replace the EF and that has been undone. (Again I will emphasize that I am not saying that it was a bad thing.)

All that being said, to bring this back to topic, I will repeat that I see this “Yahweh” directive at the very least having the effect of driving a wedge by trying to reemphasize the transcendent side of God at the expense of the personal side of God, reducing the balance that Vatican II worked hard to establish. This does not “correct” where some overdid things to the personal side, which simply reemphasizing the balance would have done, but effectively undoes that balance, whether that is an intended consequence or not. In doing so, as I said previously, we are again into promoting factions claiming “my God is better than your God” at a time when promoting unity and healing should be at the top of the agenda.

What proof can you offer that VII was guided by the Holy Spirit? What proof can you offer that the Pope and a majority of the Bishops at the time weren’t under the influence of Satan when he convened the Council and approved parts which more conservative Popes might not have done? If you want to get into proof then we’re as well giving up now.** (N.B. I do not ascribe to the above, just using them as a demonstration of why your argument is flawed, the very thing your position is based on has the same problem)** You and Jim clearly like the ‘Spirit of VII’, Jim has told us “Well I believe it was the Holy Spirit who guided the Cardinals to elect Pope John XXIII and it is the Holy Spirit who inspired him to call the Vatican II council.”. As far as I’m concerned Pope Benedict was elected by the workings of the Holy Spirit, if you recollect the coverage prior to the conclave many people were writing him off as being too old. I credit the Holy Spirit with foresight I don’t think Pope Benedict would have got elected if Our Lord didn’t want the Church to go in a certain direction.

To an extent you have a point. I believe that Pope Benedict was right to liberate the TLM. I also believe, as a personal view, that Pope John Paul II was wrong to allow Altar girls for example. But I have never and would never challenge the authority of the Pope to make such determinations, I would never imply they were a lunatic and I would certainly not imply, as you did, that they were working against “a key reason” behind a Church Council unless I was backing it up from what the Council actually said not its ‘Spirit’, nor for that matter that they were leading us into heresy.

Can you possibly provide a reference for that, ideally from the Council’s documents, not ‘Spirit of VII’ commentaries? Some would also say that the intent of VII wasn’t that High Altars should be torn out of Churches or that the Altar rail should be removed, nor for that matter that Communion in the Hand should become wholesale or Latin should be lost to the memory of many Priests educated post VII.There are also fairly well founded views that the Mass introduced was not what the participants in the Council had envisaged. And to get closer to the topic where in the VII documents did they say we should be allowed to refer to God as we wished in hymns regardless of early Church traditions?

And what is passive about prayer? The early Christians prayed when they were being martyred, and they were very much involved with the proceedings. I’m sure the Virgin Mary and St. John prayed a bit when they stood at the Foot of the Cross, were they not actively involved enough for you at that point?

Until you have evidence you’ve not done anything actually. Firstly you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was the intention of the Council to completely replace the TLM, as in remove it from use entirely. Then you can prove that the OF as it stands is what the Council wanted to replace it with. Then you can explain why they never stopped the use of the old Missal as they had when changes were made prior to that time. Then maybe you can go write a letter to Pope Benedict about it, and when it becomes the actual position of the Church you may have proved what you seem to think you have.

Evidence, lets see a few Church documents for why you think this. After all the CDW issued the document on a very good basis, returning to a practice which would have been obeyed by the early Church, a practice which was followed by the Apostles, including St. Paul. And besides all the very good reasons for following it we also get an extra tick in the improve Catholic-Jewish relations box. This seems like just the kind of thing VII would advocate, or is this just another point where VII and its ‘Spirit’ diverge with one another?

I’d have said it was doing the opposite. By returning to the ancient practice of the Church we emphasise more strongly than ever the synergy which exists between our faith and that of the Jewish people. To me that seems to promote both unity and healing. And both of those are achieved still further by returning to VII and evaluating what it actually did say so that we can avoid the excesses brought about in the name of its ‘Spirit’ and make union easier both with groups such as the SSPX and indeed with the Orthodox.

 

[ncjohn]

---

I am getting the implication from you have said —that you see the Pope’s actions as “separating” God. Along with this is the implication that the Pope is leading into heresy.

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths you will go to attempt to parse my words to twist them into something that is clearly outside my meaning.

No, I accept at face value the reasoning given for the directive, which is why I stated that I would have no problem complying with it on a personal basis.

My observations come strictly from what I see as unintended consequences, based on the level of jubiliation I perceive in this previously almost totally undiscussed topic, and where that jubiliation is coming from. It is quite clearly seen as a “smackdown” by one “side”, prima facieevidence of the “wedge” I fear it creates.

This will, in my opinion, if not properly explained (and I expect it won’t be), encourage a one-sided view of God that is equally bad to the one-sided view that is too slanted to the human side at the expense of the divinity. Going too far in one direction does NOT “correct” a swing that went too far in the other; it just changes which side we’re overemphasized to.

 

[ncjohn]

What proof can you offer that VII was guided by the Holy Spirit? What proof can you offer that the Pope and a majority of the Bishops at the time weren’t under the influence of Satan when he convened the Council and approved parts which more conservative Popes might not have done?

I’ll not waste my time even reading beyond this point.

If one can decide that an Ecumenical Council is outside the guidance of the Holy Spirit then we get to pick and choose, based on our own personal belief, which ones were and which ones weren’t.

Not going to waste time even going down that road.

Sorry, you’ll have to see if you can find someone else to take that bait.

Non-infallible liturgical directives don’t fall under automatic guidance of the Holy Spirit and can be changed at will from one Pope to another. You don’t get to claim automatic divine guidance on those.

 

[snhs]

This will, in my opinion, if not properly explained (and I expect it won’t be), encourage a one-sided view of God that is equally bad to the one-sided view that is too slanted to the human side at the expense of the divinity. Going too far in one direction does NOT “correct” a swing that went too far in the other; it just changes which side we’re overemphasized to.

It seems to me that we are better to show too much respect to Our Lord than too little. Although perhaps you take the opposite view.

 

[snhs]

I’ll not waste my time even reading beyond this point.

If one can decide that an Ecumenical Council is outside the guidance of the Holy Spirit then we get to pick and choose, based on our own personal belief, which ones were and which ones weren’t.

Not going to waste time even going down that road.

Sorry, you’ll have to see if you can find someone else to take that bait.

Non-infallible liturgical directives don’t fall under automatic guidance of the Holy Spirit and can be changed at will from one Pope to another. You don’t get to claim automatic divine guidance on those.

[Edited] I stated quite clearly, indeed bolding it lest your eyes should fail you:

**
“(N.B. I do not ascribe to the above, just using them as a demonstration of why your argument is flawed, the very thing your position is based on has the same problem)”**

And in case you don’t realise it the Pope has a degree of influence within a Council. For example, I seem to remember hearing that he removed control of certain changes from the remit of Vatican Congregations. That had a profound effect on the liturgy we ended up with, and it was a fallible decision he took to do so.

 

[Walking_Home]

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths you will go to attempt to parse my words to twist them into something that is clearly outside my meaning.

No, I accept at face value the reasoning given for the directive, which is why I stated that I would have no problem complying with it on a personal basis.

My observations come strictly from what I see as unintended consequences, based on the level of jubiliation I perceive in this previously almost totally undiscussed topic, and where that jubiliation is coming from. It is quite clearly seen as a “smackdown” by one “side”, prima facieevidence of the “wedge” I fear it creates.

This will, in my opinion, if not properly explained (and I expect it won’t be), encourage a one-sided view of God that is equally bad to the one-sided view that is too slanted to the human side at the expense of the divinity. Going too far in one direction does NOT “correct” a swing that went too far in the other; it just changes which side we’re overemphasized to.

---

Yet you basing the “swing” on your own idea/or and idea place into your head of what the council intended. You hold yourself the “authority” of what you see as the the “correct” way. As was mentioned prior – the man who is now our Pope —was actually there.

By the way —have you read John Paul II’s Ecclesia de Eucharistia
The Dignity of the Eucharistic Celebration. It seems he would fall under your “interpretation” of not having a “balance” view of God.

adoremus.org/EcclesiaDeEucharistia.html#anchor566973

 

[ncjohn]

It seems to me that we are better to show too much respect to Our Lord than too little. Although perhaps you take the opposite view.

If you were to read my post, I clearly state–for the second time–that I have no problem with complying with it and that I accept at face value its intention, which I do in fact find laudable. I clearly explained my issue with the directive, which has nothing to do with this.

snhs:

You are more the fool for it.

snhs:

You and Jim clearly like the ‘Spirit of VII’…

snhs:

It seems to me that we are better to show too much respect to Our Lord than too little. Although perhaps you take the opposite view.

And you clearly find labeling and insulting people so you can marginalize and write them off an acceptable subsitute for presenting facts. I guess that would allow me the prerogative to find you discourteous, unChristian, and insubstantial and write you off, though I’ll choose to still find value in whatever truth your words may hold.

I have been clear that I am not criticizing the Pope or the directive. My only concern is with the way it clearly is already being used as an “us against them” weapon. Creating more division is never a good thing, especially between brothers and sisters who need to be working together to bring God to a world that desperately needs Him.

I’d personally like us all to be on the same team, but it’s very clear that far too many want separate teams, and I find that very sad.

Having presented and explained my concerns, I’ll depart so as to not sow further discord.

 

[Walking_Home]

If you were to read my post, I clearly state–for the second time–that I have no problem with complying with it and that I accept at face value its intention, which I do in fact find laudable. I clearly explained my issue with the directive, which has nothing to do with this.

And you clearly find labeling and insulting people so you can marginalize and write them off an acceptable subsitute for presenting facts. I guess that would allow me the prerogative to find you discourteous, unChristian, and insubstantial and write you off, though I’ll choose to still find value in whatever truth your words may hold.

I have been clear that I am not criticizing the Pope or the directive. My only concern is with the way it clearly is already being used as an “us against them” weapon. Creating more division is never a good thing, especially between brothers and sisters who need to be working together to bring God to a world that desperately needs Him.

I’d personally like us all to be on the same team, but it’s very clear that far too many want separate teams, and I find that very sad.

Having presented and explained my concerns, I’ll depart so as to not sow further discord.

---

It seems this thread was discussing the directive and its implementation–that is until “the division” came in as to how it would undo “someones idea” of what the Council had “intended”.