P
pnewton
Guest
I am reminded of the word of Jesus when he said that a house divided against itself can not stand, as well as the teaching of St. Paul in the twelth chapter of First Corinthians.
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
pn, you really think we’re all that divided?
S
Shin
Guest
‘I do not speak rashly, but as I feel and think. I do not think that many priests are saved, but that those who perish are far more numerous. The reason is that the office requires a great soul. For there are many things to make a priest swerve from rectitude, and he requires great vigilance on every side.’
St. John Chrysostom
‘The most evident mark of God’s anger is the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world, is manifested when He permits his people to fall into the hands of clergy who are priests more in name than in deed. When God permits such things it is very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His people and is visiting His most dreadful anger on them. That is why He cries out unceasingly to Christians, return you rebellious Christians and I will give you pastors according to my own heart.’
St. Jean Eudes
P
pnewton
Guest
This is a question we must all stop and ask ourselves when we find ourselves on the offense against each other. That is why I suggested the Pauline writing. It does give us something to think about when we try to think of others as apart of the body of Christ that we are not, and not the enemy.pn, you really think we’re all that divided?
Heaven knows there are some on both sides that know more of doctrine, scripture or history than of Charity.
C
CradleCath
Guest
[QU
N
NeelyAnn
Guest
Wow! What an incredible post. I know that post must not have been easy for you. It is filled with much emotion and must have been difficult to put together. You did a lovely job expressing your feelings and what you have been through. Thank you so much for sharing this.
J
justme
Guest
Sorry if this is off topic but what is a Novus Ordo priest?
I thought a Catholic priest was a Catholic priest, or are priests now defined by a preference of one of the forms of the Rite of the Mass?
I thought a Catholic priest was a Catholic priest, or are priests now defined by a preference of one of the forms of the Rite of the Mass?
F
FAB
Guest
The falacy in your passion is that you attribute all theses things to VII and not the the effect of the secular world upon th mother Church. Secularism is the true enemy and evil that we should be addressing, not attacking our own institution and our own bishops and priest. All these things you mention have thier own causes and I doubt you can show any tangable data or studies that the the root cause was VII.
Peace,
FAB
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Its just the typical Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
The argument will be that all this stuff started to happen after Vatican II so Vatican II must be the cause but when one actually looks at what is going on you can see much of it had a start pre-Vatican II, its just not that pronounced.
S
Shin
Guest
No, it clearly is caused by by Vatican II and Pope Paul’s measures taken after the Council, which were continued by his successors rather than corrected.
It could not be more clearly cause and effect. It takes denial, explicit, denial to try to say otherwise. Any fair minded evaluation can see it instantly.
The exact reasons for the rebellion, exodus, etc. were the various disciplinary measures and pronouncements of the Pope and the Council, and this testified to by the people who left often enough. If you can’t see that, when a train hits a wall, you’ll deny it was the train’s fault there was a hole in the wall and talk about sedimentary decay.
What is a real shame is the denial, the sheer denial to take responsibility for what happened, and the reasons why. But people make that leap because of a sense of false loyalty.
It’s a cover up and denial of responsibility even more gigantic than the sexual abuse crisis. A great facade of a ‘Springtime’ that never was.
S
surritter
Guest
So in other words, Shin, the gates of Hell DID prevail over the Church, eh?
P
pnewton
Guest
Especially the part about child sexual abuse. That was even more bizarre than blaming it on a celebate priesthood, like some anticatholic Protestants do.
S
Shin
Guest
You keep setting up straw men.
You just don’t understand how far it can go bad, you don’t understand what ‘the gates of Hell cannot prevail’ means. It is farther than you think, or put forth, and if you look at the history of the Church you would see this.
The apologists who paint an overly rosey idealistic picture of the Church do no favors, because they do not allow her soldiers to know how to defend her properly.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Can we say then that increasing secularism in the Church led (at least partially) to Vatican II then?
S
surritter
Guest
The “gates of hell” bit means that the Church is protected from error in doctrine, dogmas, and all areas of faith and morals. That’s my point – folks on this thread are equating things like the Latin language or the direction the priest faces with doctrine. They are not; they are what we call “disciplines.”You keep setting up straw men.
You just don’t understand how far it can go bad, you don’t understand what ‘the gates of Hell cannot prevail’ means. It is farther than you think, or put forth, and if you look at the history of the Church you would see this.
The apologists who paint an overly rosey idealistic picture of the Church do no favors, because they do not allow her soldiers to know how to defend her properly.
Yes, there can be gross errors of judgment in these matters of discipline, but it’s one thing to debate the wisdom and another to debate the validity. (I don’t think you questioned the validity in your last post, Shin, but others have questioned the “efficacy.”)
Perhaps that term needs to be defined better – is an “ineffective” Mass one where the sacrifice is not really offered (big problem) or one where the sacrifice is offered but the way it is done is not ideal?
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
No, we can say an uncompleted Vatican I lead to Vatican II.Can we say then that increasing secularism in the Church led (at least partially) to Vatican II then?
I would be willing to say that an increasing secularism in the world has corrupted Vatican II into what some call the “Spirit of Vatican II”. Rather than what Vatican II actual taught.
P
ProVobis
Guest
That’s quite a stretch, isn’t it? How exactly did Vatican II complete Vatican I?
And Vatican II, by inviting heretics, Communists, and other wackos, didn’t wrap itself around the secular world?
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Simply put, Vatican I dealt with the Papacy and never closed. Vatican II continued on with the work that Vatican I did not get to, that of the Church and the Episcopate.
None of those you speak of were voting members or even speakers at the Council, they were observers.
Anyways, Vatican II is one of the Ecumenical Councils of the Church, to say that it introduced error into the Church is to say that the Holy Spirit failed in its job and that the Church has taught error, which it can not, by definition do.
This is just another example of an anti-Vatican II thread.
P
ProVobis
Guest
And, if it were so important, why did it take over a hundred years to get into it?
Yes, only observers. And we know crowds don’t affect the outcome of the game.
Who said it taught error or even that it was unnecessary? But then who said it taught anything that would be applicable forever, unlike Trent?
I’m sure you’d feel differently if Vatican II or its spirit had taken away your traditions. Seems like the Eastern Rites got basically unscathed by the council. Sometimes I feel the real war on these fora is between the East and the West, not EF vs OF.
S
surritter
Guest
Wait Pro, what did Trent say that was to be forever, that Vatican II then overturned? (This is the single BIGGEST misunderstanding that our TLM-only friends have.)
I’ll borrow from another site that explains (bold is my emphasis):
“Consistent with previous and subsequent Popes, Pope Saint Pius V used ecclesiastical terms like ‘forever’ and ‘in perpetuity’ to safeguard the liturgy. But these terms** do not bind future Popes** from altering the disciplines, who themselves would have ‘supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power’ [2] in their respective pontificates. This fact is well known among canonists and liturgists. The Tridentine Rite itself was based on previous rites and, by the time Pope Paul VI issued his apostolic constitution (Missale Romanum) that promulgated the Missale Romanum in 1969, several Popes already had modified the Tridentine Rite several times without controversy.”
If I am mistaken and you were referring to a different proclamation from Trent, please accept my apology and tell us what else Vatican II violated.
I’ll borrow from another site that explains (bold is my emphasis):
“Consistent with previous and subsequent Popes, Pope Saint Pius V used ecclesiastical terms like ‘forever’ and ‘in perpetuity’ to safeguard the liturgy. But these terms** do not bind future Popes** from altering the disciplines, who themselves would have ‘supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power’ [2] in their respective pontificates. This fact is well known among canonists and liturgists. The Tridentine Rite itself was based on previous rites and, by the time Pope Paul VI issued his apostolic constitution (Missale Romanum) that promulgated the Missale Romanum in 1969, several Popes already had modified the Tridentine Rite several times without controversy.”
If I am mistaken and you were referring to a different proclamation from Trent, please accept my apology and tell us what else Vatican II violated.
- Status