Perhaps I come across too strongly

[Servus_Pio_XII]

I am not and never have been an Ultra-Traditionalist. This may come as a surprise to those of you who read my posts.

I am, in the stead of this, a traditionalist who, being as such, does not like the course which leads away from the Council’s true vision, that being a blend of the new and old. Therefore, when I seek this equalibrium, I tend to see all new and no old, and jump immediately to the really old.

The Church goes on roller-coasters every time it changes, and we are on one now. I suppose I need to accept it, and try to shift it back in the direction it was meant to be headed.

I want to know if anyone else feels this way about the Church, and to debate this viewpoint a bit.

 

[bear06]

The Church goes on roller-coasters every time it changes, and we are on one now. I suppose I need to accept it, and try to shift it back in the direction it was meant to be headed.

This is pretty much how I feel. I am of the same mind as Pope Benedict on this issue. I’m very hopeful that he will continue to bring things around to the Council’s true intentions and I pray that he lives long enough to make some serious strides in this direction.

 

[Michael_Welter]

The traditions of the Church are absolutely beautiful, and I would love to see them preserved. However, they are not the focus of our faith, nor should they be required for our faith. Jesus was very clear that if traditions got in the way of our relationship with God, then they must be abolished. He was known to break Jewish law often, and ignore traditions that he saw as interferring with people’s journey to God.

If the traditions of the Church lead you closer to God, then they are wonderful. But no two people are exactly alike. What may lead me to God may lead someone else away from God. The doctrines of our faith are not negotiable. The traditions are.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Michael Welter:

The traditions of the Church are absolutely beautiful, and I would love to see them preserved. However, they are not the focus of our faith, nor should they be required for our faith. Jesus was very clear that if traditions got in the way of our relationship with God, then they must be abolished. He was known to break Jewish law often, and ignore traditions that he saw as interferring with people’s journey to God.

If the traditions of the Church lead you closer to God, then they are wonderful. But no two people are exactly alike. What may lead me to God may lead someone else away from God. The doctrines of our faith are not negotiable. The traditions are.

Don’t confuse tradition and Tradition. :tsktsk:

**Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence. ** Dei Verbum, 2nd Vatican Council

 

[palmas85]

The Church is in a pretty sad state these days. Different factions pulling this way and that way, and precious little guidance from the Vatican except for very carefully worded treatsies that can be interpreted in many different ways. Somehow we as a Church have lost something that defined us as what we are. Was it tradition, the Mass, the culture, the seming timelesness of the institution, who knows? Bit we have lost it. maybe we are in the process of replacing it with something else. Hopefully something better.

Welter said that Jesus didn’t stand on traditions that kept people from geting close to God. Yes that is very true… The difference was that Jesus was in the process of ESTABLISHING the Kingdom of God , and paving the way for the new Church, the Holy Catholic Church.

Is a new church being formed before our eyes? Will the traditions of the Church be gone in the future? There seems in many circles to be almost a maniacal desire to return to the so called primitive church which I guess is supposed to be closer to God and somehow more holy.

I guess only time will tell. I just hope the Holy Father does some serious praying and reflection on the route the Church will take in the oncoming years.

As an ending note, I remember being told in catechism way back when, that there was a possibility, a great possibility, that towards the end, the last Pope would actually supervise the destruction of the Holy Catholic Church as it was known, replacing it with something different. The sisters said we needed to keep our eyes and ears open for that possibility.

COR JESU SACRATISSIMUM, MISERERE NOBIS

 

[Michael_Welter]

Dr. Bombay:

Don’t confuse tradition and Tradition. :tsktsk:

I hope I didn’t. I specifically wrote it as “tradition” and not “Tradition”. The traditions of the Church are to be used as long as they serve the needs of God’s people, and dropped if they cease to do so. The Traditions of the Church are a whole different matter, as you pointed out.

 

[manualman]

IMO, there is a hilltop of faith where God is worshipped as the Almighty, praised for His greatness, thanked for His generosity. Jesus is acknowledged as fully God AND fully human. The people pray, receive sacraments, are humble and obedient to God’s plan for humanity and as a result, they see Christ in one another (and behave accordingly when it comes to problems of poverty and injustice).

Unfortunately, we dumb humans keep falling off of this hilltop. I also fully agree that Vatican II was fully true and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit to correct certain problems in the church. Before it, the average catholic mass was an experience of profound sacredness, but perhaps so much so that people sometimes forgot that the God of heaven and earth was also a humble carpenter who hung out with coarse fishermen. Many catholics practiced great devotionals, but perhaps failed to see Jesus himself in the poor (or perhaps the black man…)

Vatican II was intended to restore a mysterious balance between the transcendence of God and the nearness of Christ our savior. What has happend instead is that we overshot the hilltop and fell into the valley on the other side. Too many view God as a Santa Claus figure who exists to serve US! Too many see the church as a human institution whose primary purpose is to promote human dignity for its own sake.

IMO, it’s time to start climbing the hill again. Hopefully we can be more careful this time when we get to the top. Certain ultra-trad groups make me nervous that we’ll just fall into the other valley again!

 

[ThomasMore1535]

I fully agree with the sentiments expressed by Servius Pio XII (excellent domain name, by the way!) Vatican II was indeed valid, and its documents are beautiful, but the liberals got a foothold in the Church following the Council. Not that the gates of hell have, or ever will, prevail, of course.

I heard once that following Vatican I, the great Bl. Pius IX actually said that there are three phases in the aftermath of every Ecumenical Council: 1) The time of the devil, 2) the time of man, and 3) the time of God. I think this could certainly apply to Vatican II. Immediately following the Council, in the 70’s, satan wrecked havoc on the faith of many. The liturgy suffered immensely at the hands of “experts,” and dissent has gone rampant. In the last few years, though, things have slowly been getting better. We aren’t there yet, obviously, but I think that the “time of the devil” is finally over. Those pesky hippie liberals are all aging, and more and more orthodox people are gaining influence, many of whom are young and were born after the Council. I predict that soon we will enter the time of God, or, as John Paul the Great put it, the “new springtime” of the Church.

I myself am highly involved in Opus Dei, which epitomizes everything that the Council meant to teach, especially the sanctification of the laity in their ordinary lives. Their masses, the Novous Ordo, are extremely reverent. They also teach what Vatican II actually said.

So, fear not, all. Our Lord will never abandon his church. Things are starting to look better. I actually just attended mass at a church that suffered architectural havoc in the 70’s, and almost started jumping for joy when the parish priest announced that they were planning to MOVE THE TABERNACLE BACK INTO THE CENTER OF THE MAIN SANCTUARY, AND CONSTRUCT A NEW, MORE ORNATE, HIGH ALTAR IN FRONT OF IT. Can you believe it? Our Lord will take care of everything, we just have to follow His will.

 

[Genesis315]

ThomasMore1535:

I fully agree with the sentiments expressed by Servius Pio XII (excellent domain name, by the way!) Vatican II was indeed valid, and its documents are beautiful, but the liberals got a foothold in the Church following the Council. Not that the gates of hell have, or ever will, prevail, of course.

I heard once that following Vatican I, the great Bl. Pius IX actually said that there are three phases in the aftermath of every Ecumenical Council: 1) The time of the devil, 2) the time of man, and 3) the time of God. I think this could certainly apply to Vatican II. Immediately following the Council, in the 70’s, satan wrecked havoc on the faith of many. The liturgy suffered immensely at the hands of “experts,” and dissent has gone rampant. In the last few years, though, things have slowly been getting better. We aren’t there yet, obviously, but I think that the “time of the devil” is finally over. Those pesky hippie liberals are all aging, and more and more orthodox people are gaining influence, many of whom are young and were born after the Council. I predict that soon we will enter the time of God, or, as John Paul the Great put it, the “new springtime” of the Church.

This is basically my view as well. Vatican II was different than any other council because it has no strict definitions or specific condemnations. In fact, if you read Blessed John XXIII’s opening address, he specifically says there will be no condemnations of error or definitions of dogma–it was all about explantion and the Church’s role in a turbulent modern world. In this way, the council took a much “softer” stance than other councils. Likewise, the mass media portrayed it as a council of change because of this different approach (remember, this is really the first council to be covered by modern mass media).

St. Pius X often spoke of how his measures to destroy modernism simply drove the modernists underground, they didn’t eradicate the problem. Well, the modernists saw this Council that condemned nothing and seemed to be all about change and took advantage of that misrepresented reputation. They used the Council as an authority to justify destroying altars, hiding the tabernacle, abusing the Mass, preaching absolute freedom of conscience (ie if you don’t think it’s a sin it’s not), democratization of the Church, religious indifferentism, false tolerance, and unity that was not in Truth. In reality, none of this was taught by the Council.

I actually just attended mass at a church that suffered architectural havoc in the 70’s, and almost started jumping for joy when the parish priest announced that they were planning to MOVE THE TABERNACLE BACK INTO THE CENTER OF THE MAIN SANCTUARY, AND CONSTRUCT A NEW, MORE ORNATE, HIGH ALTAR IN FRONT OF IT. Can you believe it? Our Lord will take care of everything, we just have to follow His will

Yes, my dad’s parish in his home town was also dismantled after Vatican II, but it has been restored in the last couple years

 

[rwoehmke]

Vatican II was the first Council that occurred at a time when we had television and then the internet. I am sure that had they existed during the times of some of the other Councils the lay people would have been as heavily involved as they were for this one. The Council provided the materials and almost everyone imagined themselves a chef and forthwith without pause cooked up a soup of their own design. I think that John Paul II and Benedict XVI will soon have gotten most of us of goodwill to follow their recipe. Many of us who lived through those heady years have gotten it out of our system and are more prone to listen up before brewing up our own idea of Church.

 

[Topher]

Servus Pio XII:

I am not and never have been an Ultra-Traditionalist. This may come as a surprise to those of you who read my posts.

I am, in the stead of this, a traditionalist who, being as such, does not like the course which leads away from the Council’s true vision, that being a blend of the new and old. Therefore, when I seek this equalibrium, I tend to see all new and no old, and jump immediately to the really old.

The Church goes on roller-coasters every time it changes, and we are on one now. I suppose I need to accept it, and try to shift it back in the direction it was meant to be headed.

I want to know if anyone else feels this way about the Church, and to debate this viewpoint a bit.

I understand exactly how you feel. The liberals in the Church make me want to take a more and more traditional stance. There was a time when I thought that all of the masses return to the Tridentine rite. But as I have discussed and argued on the Catholic Answers forums, I have come to the conclusion that that is not necessary. There is definintely a place in the modern world for the Novus Ordo and even for things like Life Teen. I may prefer the Tridentine rite but that does not mean that it is necessary for everyone. So I find myself OK with the liturgical reforms of Vatican II I just personally prefer something more traditional. I have come to realize that just because the Chruch is doing some new things does not mean that that will cause the faithful to fall from Orthodoxy. In fact, I have come to believe that the modern problems of liberalism in the Church are more a result of American and European culture than they are a result of the Novus Ordo Mass.

 

[bear06]

This whole thread is very heartening to read! You all are the types of people who will help reform the Church from within. It’s always amazing to me to see how many people, when presented with the true teaching of the Church, embrace these teachings. It takes people like you to be an example to those who have yet to see what the libel wackos have been trying so hard to hide!

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

Yes, the only problem is that the liberal whackos make one jump through infinite hoops to find true teaching of the Church, and, quite frankly, not many want to.

People love the Church. But it is hard to find, and you can only love what you know is there.

Thank you bear06 on behalf of everyone in this thread (though you probably weren’t talking about myself). You have given us all heart.

BTW, I get to attend my first Tridentine Mass this Sunday AT THE BASILICA!!! I can hardly wait!!!

 

[bear06]

(though you probably weren’t talking about myself).

Yes I was! People with zeal for the faith have been used by God to correct errors since the Church began and it will happen again during our times and for generations to come (obviously not an “end times” person). We all get a little of the defeatest attitude on this subject sometimes. We’re human. We’ve just got to remember to try and take action rather than just sounding like Eeyore!

 

[Topher]

Servus Pio XII:

Yes, the only problem is that the liberal whackos make one jump through infinite hoops to find true teaching of the Church, and, quite frankly, not many want to.

People love the Church. But it is hard to find, and you can only love what you know is there.

Thank you bear06 on behalf of everyone in this thread (though you probably weren’t talking about myself). You have given us all heart.

BTW, I get to attend my first Tridentine Mass this Sunday AT THE BASILICA!!! I can hardly wait!!!

The groups like the St. Pius X society and the Sedavacantists also make it hard to find the true teaching of the Church. Some times I feel like saying, “I don’t know who is right”. Luckily we have the ability to reason and we know that Christ does not let his Church fall into error like the these groups seem to claim.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Servus Pio XII:

I am not and never have been an Ultra-Traditionalist. This may come as a surprise to those of you who read my posts.

I am, in the stead of this, a traditionalist who, being as such, does not like the course which leads away from the Council’s true vision, that being a blend of the new and old. Therefore, when I seek this equalibrium, I tend to see all new and no old, and jump immediately to the really old.

The Church goes on roller-coasters every time it changes, and we are on one now. I suppose I need to accept it, and try to shift it back in the direction it was meant to be headed.

I want to know if anyone else feels this way about the Church, and to debate this viewpoint a bit.

I don’t see a problem with you being more “traditional,” as long as it doesn’t lead you to sowing seeds of divisiveness or discord within the Body of Christ. I don’t see any problem with you prefering the TLM, if you do. I myself would prefer to worship in an Anglican Use parish (there isn’t one in Las Vegas, so I can’t). I simply think it’s wrong to seek to denigrate the post-conciliar Church and Mass. I’m not saying abuses are great and we should have a “free-for-all” liturgy, by any means. I also think it’s important to research things carefully in order to have a fuller grasp on what we want to say and to say it effectively.

 

[Topher]

JKirkLVNV:

I don’t see a problem with you being more “traditional,” as long as it doesn’t lead you to sowing seeds of divisiveness or discord within the Body of Christ. I don’t see any problem with you prefering the TLM, if you do. I myself would prefer to worship in an Anglican Use parish (there isn’t one in Las Vegas, so I can’t). I simply think it’s wrong to seek to denigrate the post-conciliar Church and Mass. I’m not saying abuses are great and we should have a “free-for-all” liturgy, by any means. I also think it’s important to research things carefully in order to have a fuller grasp on what we want to say and to say it effectively.

Well stated.

 

[maryalene]

In our parish book discussion this past summer, we touched briefly on the Second Vatican Council. I was born post-Vatican II so I don’t know much about what went on after it so it was an interesting discussion for me. Anyways, our priest said that some councils took centuries for their decrees to be fully implemented, and we are not even 50 years past Vatican II. The general consensus of the older members in our discussion group was that Vatican II hit at the same time as the “sexual revolution” and the civil rights movement so the whole atmosphere was one of unheavel and some people went a little wild with the “spirit” of Vatican II. Our priest seems to think that people are just now actually getting to back to the actual Vatican II documents and working to implement them. He seemed to think that liberal tide would be turning. I found that to be very encouraging.

 

[ncjohn]

Servus Pio XII:

I am not and never have been an Ultra-Traditionalist. This may come as a surprise to those of you who read my posts.

I am, in the stead of this, a traditionalist who, being as such, does not like the course which leads away from the Council’s true vision, that being a blend of the new and old. Therefore, when I seek this equalibrium, I tend to see all new and no old, and jump immediately to the really old.

The Church goes on roller-coasters every time it changes, and we are on one now. I suppose I need to accept it, and try to shift it back in the direction it was meant to be headed.

I want to know if anyone else feels this way about the Church, and to debate this viewpoint a bit.

Servus, you give me great hope with this new thread, along with most of the comments I have seen posted here. The growth in wisdom over a short time is to be commended.

Yes, as with all Councils and with all times in history, things swing back and forth some. Finding balance has always been the major challenge of both the Church and the individual. This has been especially hard over the last 40 years, in my opinion, NOT because of the council but because of the change in the world at large.While the Council certainly changed the focus of the Church, as Topher rightly noted it was more the change and growing prosperity in Western culture that brought about some of the abuses we’ve seen. I doubt very much that dissent is at any higher level than it ever has been; our modern instantaneous communications systems however make us more aware of it. What you become aware of you can become agitated about, but there are systems in place to deal with abuses and while they sometimes work slowly–especially in a diverse “catholic” Church where not all agree on what an abuse is–they do work over time.

Prosperity may in the end really be the major cause. We are as a whole far better off materially than any time in history, and material comfort tends to breed a feeling that we don’t need God. To me it isn’t the least bit surprising that people have fallen away from religion since it is mostly in our times of need that we really become desperate enough to be willing to put our knees on the ground.

The one place where I would still have to humbly ask a little consideration is in the labeling and scapegoating of the “whacky liberal.” While the thread seems to recognize the need for balance and a return to the the true intentions of the Council, I again see the “liberal” being singled out as the cause of all the abuses. This is simply not true. While there are certainly some to the “liberal” side who have pushed the envelope too far, there are just as many on the traditional side who have tried to deny the reforms of the Council and go back to the “good old days.”

We all are torn internally between the proper balance and in our journey will move back and forth between tendencies. When we see what we consider abuses toward one side or the other, as you noted, we instinctively “knee jerk” and tend to overcompensate in the other direction. Being a diverse Church, finding that center balance is a delicate process and requires that each of us give the others room to find the Truth as we pass through the different stages of our journey. That doesn’t mean that we condone abuses; it means that we work together in the loving concern for each other that Jesus called us to in overcoming them.

As I’ve said numerous times, it takes all of us in the Body of Christ if we are to bring the Kingdom to all. Just as our children must be lovingly guided to the Truth, so God’s children must be similarly guided in love. Some of us take our steps quickly; others grow at a slower rate. If we work together though, helping to carry each other’s crosses, we’ll get there together too. As Jesus told us, a house divided against itself cannot stand. I pray we can be one in seeking that greater Truth the Council proclaimed.

Peace and blessings to all,

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]