I’m going to bow out and let JReducation take over!
Pope Francis emphasizes that Second Vatican Council is the work of the Holy Spirit [CWN]
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
LOLBecause you said that those Councils took 300 years to sort out!!
I’m trying to think of which of the fathers lamented the mess after those two councils. It was rather well written. He said something like, “You’d think the world had just ended” or some such thing. He was referring to the fact that despite the fact that these councils had come and gone, people were still upset. That’s no surprise. There are people who are still upset about Vatican I.
M
McCall1981
Guest
I think the principle of religious freedom is often over-emphasized in this kind of situation though.Why?
The problem is not the law. The law is reasonable. The problem is that people are not always reasonable. They are often stubborn.
Take for example Archbishop Lefebvre. He ordained four bishops without a papal mandate. The law is very reasonable. You must have a papal mandate to ordain bishops. This is a safety net to preserve the unity of the bishops with the primacy. The law is reasonable. Archbishop Lefebvre was unreasonable and stubborn. The pope can’t have him arrested.
**The Church has to be very careful with how she enforces law that she does not violate the principle of religious freedom. ** Otherwise, she becomes a perpetrator against human dignity. Even when people do what is wrong, they do not lose their God-given dignity. The Church cannot violate that dignity by violating their religious freedom.
For example, Archbishop Lefebvre could ultimately do whatever he wanted religiously speaking, just not in the Catholic Church. The LCWR can ultimately do whatever they want, just not in the Church. They still retain the freedom to do what they want, just not as members of particular group.
I feel like people equate religious liberty to a civil right. If someone takes away my right to vote, I can’t go vote somewhere else, so this right has been taken from me and ceases to exist. But if the Church “takes away” someone’s religious freedom, all that means is that they can’t do what they want as part of the Church. They can still go out and do whatever they want, they just lose membership in a particular group.
Its the loss of membership in a group, not the loss of the ability to do what you want as a human being. It’s hard to explain what I’m thinking, I hope this makes sense
H
Hunho
Guest
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
Oh of course not brother.
The post I was responding to said that the “neo-modernist” periti at the Second Vatican Council were responsible for very ambiguous language in the documents. So I was wondering if he considered Benedict XVI “modernist”.
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
Yet Benedict says in his Theological Highlights of Vatican II that while “(early Modernists) explain Pius X’s uncompromising opposition to the spirit of novelty which was stirring everywhere…It must be said that, in sifting it (modernism) out, much real wheat was lost along with the chaff.” (p. 41)
Keep in mind that many great minds after Vatican II, including Ratzinger, were questioned for being “unorthodox” before Vatican II. While theologians expressing incorrect opinions for being modernist were (correctly) silenced before the Council, too much zeal in that regard can silence perfectly orthodox theologians who have much to contribute to the Church.
Elsewhere he says, “The real question behind the discussion could be put this way: Was the intellectual position of “anti-Modernism”–the old policy of exclusiveness, condemnation and defense leading to an almost neurotic denial of all that was new–to be continued?” And also in reference to the “Pastoral” mission of the Council he says, “What was meant was positive care for the man of today who is not helped by condemnations and who has been told for too long what is false and what he may not do. Modern man really wishes to hear what is true.”
W
WildCatholic
Guest
Very true. If the council had happened in 1952 or so, people would probably remember it fondly. One thing people forget though is that a lot of the “reforms” of Vatican 2 weren’t recommended by the council. Communion in the hand (which i’m not against since it was in the early church, though I don’t myself" was something that was allowed because certain churches were doing it in defiance of the Church, so they grudgingly allowed it. I’m sure there are a lot of other reforms that happened that weren’t part of Vatican 2 as well. I think Francis’s message is that it is of the Holy Spirit and that while Traditionalists are a vital part of the church, they shouldn’t turn away from Catholicism just because we don’t have mass in latin or have the priest face the altar.
My hope is that traditionalists will gain a little more understanding about Francis and Vatican 2 rather than criticising him and the council. To me saying the church lost numbers due to Vatican 2 is kind of a straw man argument. The 60’s were a tough time and even if the council never happened we would still find the Church struggling with losing members. People forget that the Church is about Christ and his teachings. All the other things are traditions that can change, but Traditions such as being pro life and observing the dogmas are what should matter.
I’ll step off my soapbox now.
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
I would say that people attribute the blame to Vatican II incorrectly. The truth is that there were a whole bunch of Catholics in high up places that used Vatican II to just go crazy and come up with the most bizarre ideas in the name of “implementation”. That certainly did lead many to lose their faith down the road. But that is not the fault of the council.
The Council said one thing. The Catholics were told that it said another thing and had changes made. The incorrect and false changes did contribute to the loss of faith.
I believe as the reason why there is so much talking past each other on this topic is because one side claims incorrectly that the council did contribute to the loss of faith when it was the disastrous implementations that did so. The other side claims that the loss of faith would have taken place anyway when the implementations very certainly contributed to the loss of faith. So both sides find it hard to acknowledge the part of the truth in each others position.
Then there are those who try to back up each side with even more content making the fight move to different territory and the truth gets lost.
One I hear often is that Vatican II has ambiguous writing. So it was modernist works. But so did the letters of St. Paul. The letter to the Romans for an example was interpreted incorrectly that scholars believe it as one of the main reasons for James to write his epistle to correct the ambiguous interpretation of the letter of St. Paul.
So I am sure everyone will agree that it is wrong to say that since writings of St. Paul formed the backbone for the Protestant reformation, St. Paul might have been a false convert attempting to undermine the faith from the inside by introducing ambiguity. In the same way, it would be just as bad to blame the loss of faith on Vatican II due to it being possible to interpret it ambiguously.
Just as with Scripture, it is the Church that has the final authority to interpret the council. When we try to do it ourselves, we must always do it in light of what we have been taught by the Church from before. That is unfortunately not what we can say about those who interpreted Vatican II and went nuts at the parish level. They could be said to have gone all Protestant and adopted a Sola Vaticano II mentality
E
edwest2
Guest
It would only mean undoing the work of the radicals and the dissidents from the late 1960s and 1970s. God brought us Pope John Paul II, Pope Emeritus Benedict and now, Pope Francis to help right the ship.
ncregister.com/daily-news/benedicts-men-u.s.-vocations-strengthen-during-his-eight-year-papacy/
Peace,
Ed
W
WildCatholic
Guest
Well, you could take a ride with Dr. Brown in his time machine. I’m sure it would be a fun ride
Sorry, I don’t mean to mock you or make fun of your views, but I thought a little humor could lighten up the mood. Also, i don’t know if you’ve heard in some places, seminaries are getting more people into them. Certainly not what it was in the 50’s, but who knows? Maybe it can. Rather than wishing you could go back, try and make the future better.
O
otjm
Guest
the difficulty with this position is two-fold; first, it is not the Pope who lays down the law to a politician; it is the local bishop. The Pope doesn’t have that kind of jurisdiction; it is specifically given to the bishop.
Second, as soon as the Pope would do that (presuming a change in law) he would have two problems on his hands - the bishops, (who are not mid-level managers; they are bishops in the line of the Apostles), and secondly with the government of the United States.
It is all well and good to say it is none of the government’s business; but you can bet your last dollar they would consider it so. It would be seen (rightly or wrongly, and perhaps not entirely wrongly) as interference with political matters.
You want a firestorm that serves no one any good? That would be one. The Church has enough problems already with the government (a la Obamacare).
And that has nothing to do with what I wish could happen. I would dearly love to see Biden, Pelosi and a few others keelhauled. I am also realistic enough to know that is not going to happen. So I move on.
Lord, grant me the strength to change the things I can, the patience to endure the things I can’t change, and the wisdom to know the difference.
L
Lucky7
Guest
None of that compares to the sacrilege, the public scandal and the leading others astray caused by letting them continue to receive communion. Sorry, no one will convince me otherwise.
Of course I can’t change it, but I can pray for the Pope to have the courage to do so.
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
From what I’ve read, he’s already shown he has the courage to do so as a Cardinal. I’m sure prudence and other factors will determine what he does as Pope, but I doubt that the man who readily breaks tradition will have any trouble over this issue. We’ll just have to wait and see.
A
agnes_therese
Guest
No,it would also mean undoing the entire societal shift of the time.
You can’t always go back. Sometimes – most times – when things change, they stay changed. You can adjust things, but we can’t magically transport ourselves back to 1960.
J
Jordan_Rizk
Guest
If Second Vatican Council is truly the work of the Holy Spirit then why not declare it infallible?
M
McCall1981
Guest
Ive heard references to this several times, but Ive never seen an explanation of what then Card. Bergoglio actually did.
What did he do?
B
BVMFatima
Guest
This
P
ProVobis
Guest
If shirts and ties can find their way back into boardrooms, then maybe there’s hope for us more casual folks.
And who would really want to go back to the 1960s?
We might want to bring some of the liturgical, educational, and other characteristics of Catholicism as it was practiced in the 1950s and 1960s.
But lets not forget that the seeds of the changes (whether we today consider them positive or negative) during and following Vatican II were being promoted and taught in many of the seminaries and universities prior to Vatican II.
It’s not so easy to pick and chose what is good about a time period because both the good and the bad may thrive on the same conditions.
I happen to think that a bunch of Catholics sitting around in front of their electronic devices in the 21st Century having discussions about Catholicism is one of the workings of the Holy Spirit but I don’t think anyone here would say there aren’t some negatives that come from it.
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
- Status