Pope John XXIII

[Jacafamala]

I think “it all went sour” is a frame of mind. In the history of the Church, ever proteced by our eternal God, there has never been a time when “it all went sour.”

Let me clarify: the implementation of the Council went sour.

 

[catharina]

I’m for one am not grumblimg, but I am grieving for so many of my loved ones who’ve fallen away from the Church because of all this confusion.

I’ve known of those who have fallen away due to pride and anger.
Those who are truly confused? Our Lord understands that.

Still, confusion can not justify insulting the Church - yet some do.
To claim confusion while being enraged is duplicity.

 

[catharina]

Let me clarify: the implementation of the Council went sour.

The forty years post-Council is a brief moment for a 2000 yr-old Church. Implementation cannot happen overnight within a Church that covers the world and is one billion strong.

 

[Jacafamala]

I’ve known of those who have fallen away due to pride and anger.
Those who are truly confused? Our Lord understands that.

I think Our Lord would prefer proper Catechesis.

Still, confusion can not justify insulting the Church - yet some do.
To claim confusion while being enraged is duplicity.

And some people become enraged because they’ve misunderstood the Church.

Should we split this thread? Start a new one? This subject of ‘what good has come out of VII?’ has been bothering me for a long time now. I’d like to talk about it further, but I don’t want to pull things off topic here.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I do believe this, but it’s just so hard to understand why it all went sour.

To use your own terms, “it all went sour” with the sin of Adam and Eve. The human history of salvation has been the struggle between the forces of good and evil ever since. To give in, is to acquiesce to the forces of evil. Do not do it. We have the Holy Spirit on our side and** CANNOT **lose.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[SFD]

from ewtn.com/expert/answers/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm

"Heresy, Schism and Apostasy

Definitions The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines these three sins against the faith in this way:2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.

"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;

schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." Code of Canon Law c.751]
The Church’s moral theology has always distinguished between objective or *material *sin and formal sin. The person who holds something contrary to the Catholic faith is materially a heretic. They possess the matter of heresy, theological error. Thus, prior to the Second Vatican Council it was quite common to speak of non-Catholic Christians as heretics, since many of their doctrines are objectively contrary to Catholic teaching. This theological distinction remains true, though in keeping with the pastoral charity of the Council today we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy. Thus, the person who is objectively in heresy is not formally guilty of heresy if 1) their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and 2) they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth. This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing before God.
ETC…"

And you say nothing has changed? Your argument is against fact, and as such really cannot be answered. The Church is defined as a body and those who are members are part of that body.
Pope Pius XII:

1. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” [17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

The distinction in the use of terms is explained above.

Your argument is with Pope Pius XII…go look it up in Denzinger (The sources of Catholic Dogma)…it’s number 2286.

As for your ‘BTW’ question to me, look it up. It’s off-topic.

I brought it up…it’s my topic. If I start a new thread will you answer it?

SFD

 

[juliamajor]

So everything was hunky-dory before VII? If you believe that I’ll show you a bridge in Brooklyn you may want to buy! Why did sooo many welcome the changes that came after VII?I know I did.God became very real to me-I could understand the mass instead of mumbling responses I really didn’t understand. It brought me closer to Christ as Lord and brother. God wasn’t there to condemn me(I was told chewing gum in church was a mortal sin-I was 8). but to help me- He really seemed like a Father instead of a big mean boss. Remember Jonathan Edwards"Sinners in the hands of an Angry God"? that was my view of God before VII .I was A teenager when Vii was implemented - so I’m very aware of how it was before and after. too many romanticize things that they don’t know or haven’t experienced. I was there, my mom was there.My Mom was always afraid of God-(not as much now) but still is extremely scrupulous .a little guilt is a good thing but when you start to doubt God’s mercy- you are really on the verge of a bigger sin.Feeling guilty about everything is not healthy -not conducive to good mental health- or a good relationship with God.Love covers a multitude of sins- loving God and trusting Him & believing He loves you is the foundation you can build on. Fear anxiety,.desolation- a foundation of sand. were things implemented poorly or wrongly?-yeah but don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.And as far as older people just yearning for the church of the past? Hogwash -if you go by the older people I teach. They don’t want to go back to Latin or being treated like second class citizens because they are Lay people. We wouldn’t have all those great deacons that we have.I wouldn’t have had the conversion experience I had because of a very gentle confessor If Vii wasn’t implemented I wouldn’t have as close a relationship with God as I do now. !563 continued on other traditions as every other Council leans on the tradition before them. so why not go back to the most ancient traditions- apostolic traditions given to them by Christ-Go back to the traditions in the books of the Fathers!

 

[lintpick1]

I don’t pretend to think everything was hunky dory before Vatican II, but Catholics then went to Mass, believed in the Real Presence, and the Authority of the Church. Priests were distinguishable, nuns wore habits, and Seminaries were full. Not everyone was waiting for the reform, and a lot of people couldn’t recognize the Church after the reform.

 

[angillusion]

I don’t pretend to think everything was hunky dory before Vatican II, but Catholics then went to Mass, believed in the Real Presence, and the Authority of the Church. Priests were distinguishable, nuns wore habits, and Seminaries were full. Not everyone was awaiting for the reform, and a lot of people couldn’t recognize the Church after the reform.

I’m not actually sure that Catholics were any more certain in their beliefs pre-Vatican II, but I think maybe Vatican II helped some people voice their confusions and opinions. I think that Vatican II gave a lot more responsibility to congregants to really understand and know their faith. It’s really easy to recite and do the movements and show up, but a lack of connection with those gestures was probably a problem pre-Vatican II as well as post.

Granted, I’ve never attended a Latin Mass. But I have enough trouble trying to stay focused when I attend Mass. If it were in a different language and with someone’s back to me, if I went at all, my primary motivation would likely be fear, or at the very least ingrained obligation. Faith should be a lot more than that, and I think V-II encouraged that.

 

[lintpick1]

I’m not actually sure that Catholics were any more certain in their beliefs pre-Vatican II, but I think maybe Vatican II helped some people voice their confusions and opinions. I think that Vatican II gave a lot more responsibility to congregants to really understand and know their faith. It’s really easy to recite and do the movements and show up, but a lack of connection with those gestures was probably a problem pre-Vatican II as well as post.

Granted, I’ve never attended a Latin Mass. But I have enough trouble trying to stay focused when I attend Mass. If it were in a different language and with someone’s back to me, if I went at all, my primary motivation would likely be fear, or at the very least ingrained obligation. Faith should be a lot more than that, and I think V-II encouraged that.

To imply that laity didn’t know their faith before Vatican II is extremely disrectful to them. They knew well enough to attend Mass, not contracept, not abort, not divorce, encourage vocations, help the poor, etc. Family prayer was important, as well as building faithful communities which is evident in the number of Catholic schools around the country. With only one provider, many families made huge sacrifices to send their kids to Catholic schools, not just one or two but 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10+ kids. And today it is frowned upon to have so many kids. This radical shift in the idea of family comes straight from Vatican II.

I’m not condemning small families, I’m just saying that some of the reasons families stop having kids would seem ridiculous to the many Catholic Mothers of the early 20th century.

 

[angillusion]

To imply that laity didn’t know their faith before Vatican II is extremely disrectful to them. They knew well enough to attend Mass, not contracept, not abort, not divorce, encourage vocations, help the poor, etc. Family prayer was important, as well as building faithful communities which is evident in the number of Catholic schools around the country. With only one provider, many families made huge sacrifices to send their kids to Catholic schools, not just one or two but 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10+ kids. And today it is frowned upon to have so many kids. This radical shift in the idea of family comes straight from Vatican II.

I don’t know if it’s frowned on to have so many kids, but I think it probably is frowned on to have more kids than you can support financially and emotionally. Some large families are incredibly close and supportive, and some are the exact opposite. Same’s true for small families. I mean no disrespect, but I think that questioning is important. Also, contraception and abortions were happening as well, but methods were much more quiet, less safe, and less socially acceptable. I’m by far no expert on the subject, but I don’t think V-II made any changes to the Church’s stance on those issues. The shift probably more comes from changes in the world at large and society’s values.

But seriously, I could totally be talking nonsense. I’m an incredibly lapsed Catholic, and by all accounts probably wouldn’t even be considered one at all, given my social views and my massive lack of understanding of the Church. I’m just trying to navigate by the moral compass I currently have.

And Pope Roncalli’s was way better than mine! Hey, there’s the dopic!

 

[lintpick1]

I don’t know if it’s frowned on to have so many kids, but I think it probably is frowned on to have more kids than you can support financially and emotionally. Some large families are incredibly close and supportive, and some are the exact opposite. Same’s true for small families. I mean no disrespect, but I think that questioning is important. Also, contraception and abortions were happening as well, but methods were much more quiet, less safe, and less socially acceptable. I’m by far no expert on the subject, but I don’t think V-II made any changes to the Church’s stance on those issues. The shift probably more comes from changes in the world at large and society’s values.

But seriously, I could totally be talking nonsense. I’m an incredibly lapsed Catholic, and by all accounts probably wouldn’t even be considered one at all, given my social views and my massive lack of understanding of the Church. I’m just trying to navigate by the moral compass I currently have.

And Pope Roncalli’s was way better than mine! Hey, there’s the dopic!

I’m not saying the Pope Jonh XXIII was a bad pope, or bad catholic, or a bad person, but not every Pope should be canonised and if they are to be canonised then their life’s work should be scrutinized. Right now he is beatified which is an accomplishment in and of itself. We have to look at his life in terms of the fruits it produced which was Vatican II. The point is that we have yet to see substantial fruits from the Council, and until it is interpreted in light of Tradition there may never be any. True ecumenism is teaching the Truth to other religions, not accepting differences which is another way of saying lies.

 

[juliamajor]

To imply that laity didn’t know their faith before Vatican II is extremely disrectful to them. They knew well enough to attend Mass, not contracept, not abort, not divorce, encourage vocations, help the poor, etc. Family prayer was important, as well as building faithful communities which is evident in the number of Catholic schools around the country. With only one provider, many families made huge sacrifices to send their kids to Catholic schools, not just one or two but 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10+ kids. And today it is frowned upon to have so many kids. This radical shift in the idea of family comes straight from Vatican II.

I’m not condemning small families, I’m just saying that some of the reasons families stop having kids would seem ridiculous to the many Catholic Mothers of the early 20th century.

I was there so don’t say people knew more about there faith- they didn’.t Gratefully I was totally catechized by my Presentation sisters in HS .People observed rituals ,did devotion- but didn’t know why.I was teaching my parents theology and the reasons behind the rites and rituals. To know why we do something is just as important as doing it. It we do a devotion by rote or because Grandma Mable did it isn’t enough…Too many people did things blindly. When things are done blindly is to stagger on the edge of superstition. The trouble isn’t with VII but teaching the faith. Most people after Vatican II were impowered to not just to “pay, pray and obey"but wanted to know the reasons for what was required of them. Older generation was told you don’t have know why you just gotta do it- new generation wants to do crafts and and puppet shows!A little hard nose catechetics combined with a gentleness of spirit.can go a long way.But kids are no longer doing something because"you have too”.Give them a reason to believe!

 

[SFD]

I’m not actually sure that Catholics were any more certain in their beliefs pre-Vatican II, but I think maybe Vatican II helped some people voice their confusions and opinions. I think that Vatican II gave a lot more responsibility to congregants to really understand and know their faith.

Except they don’t know their faith. What you are saying is that they should have…but the fact is they didn’t and they don’t now and it’s a disaster. The ruin of souls, actually.

It’s really easy to recite and do the movements and show up, but a lack of connection with those gestures was probably a problem pre-Vatican II as well as post.

Granted, I’ve never attended a Latin Mass. But I have enough trouble trying to stay focused when I attend Mass. If it were in a different language and with someone’s back to me, if I went at all, my primary motivation would likely be fear, or at the very least ingrained obligation. Faith should be a lot more than that, and I think V-II encouraged that.

It’s called filial fear, I believe…and that “ingrained obligation” is called hearing the Church. He who hears you, hears Me.

SFD

 

[SFD]

So everything was hunky-dory before VII?

…]

so why not go back to the most ancient traditions- apostolic traditions given to them by Christ-Go back to the traditions in the books of the Fathers!

Because that’s antiquarianism. It was being combated in the 1947 Encyclical on the Sacred Liturgy, Mediator Dei:
Pius XII:

1. The worship rendered by the Church to God must be, in its entirety, interior as well as exterior. It is exterior because the nature of man as a composite of body and soul requires it to be so. Likewise, because divine Providence has disposed that “while we recognize God visibly, we may be drawn by Him to love of things unseen.”[26] Every impulse of the human heart, besides, expresses itself naturally through the senses; and the worship of God, being the concern not merely of individuals but of the whole community of mankind, must therefore be social as well. This obviously it cannot be unless religious activity is also organized and manifested outwardly. Exterior worship, finally, reveals and emphasizes the unity of the mystical Body, feeds new fuel to its holy zeal, fortifies its energy, intensifies its action day by day: "for although the ceremonies themselves can claim no perfection or sanctity in their won right, they are, nevertheless, the outward acts of religion, designed to rouse the heart, like signals of a sort, to veneration of the sacred realities, and to raise the mind to meditation on the supernatural. They serve to foster piety, to kindle the flame of charity, to increase our faith and deepen our devotion. They provide instruction for simple folk, decoration for divine worship, continuity of religious practice. They make it possible to tell genuine Christians from their false or heretical counterparts."[27]
2. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.
3. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

SFD

 

[samoht]

It seems that some of the posts are of the same impression as I.
The comments about it all went sour and so many family and friends have turned away from such happenings must mean something. Are these evil people who say such things? No!
Are they mis-guided? No! They are concerned loving faithful people who see things that should never have come to pass.

There comes a time when we all need to take a stand and say what is truly felt. Is it not common sense to voice how one truly feels.

Some of these folks probably feel betrayed or left hanging on what they truly feel. Maybe many who feel this way are those who know what the church was like prior to Vatican II. They are probably like me who grew up in the 40’s and saw how wonderful the reverance and faithfullness was during the time prior to Vatican II. It was good, very good and reverant in all aspects. If one can tell me now that there is that kind of faith and reverance I would like to have them tell me that I might understand. I do not think they can.

God Bless all
Thomas…
twmaGb

 

[catharina]

It seems that some of the posts are of the same impression as I.
The comments about it all went sour and so many family and friends have turned away from such happenings must mean something. Are these evil people who say such things? No!
Are they mis-guided? No! They are concerned loving faithful people who see things that should never have come to pass.

There comes a time when we all need to take a stand and say what is truly felt. Is it not common sense to voice how one truly feels.

Some of these folks probably feel betrayed or left hanging on what they truly feel. Maybe many who feel this way are those who know what the church was like prior to Vatican II. They are probably like me who grew up in the 40’s and saw how wonderful the reverance and faithfullness was during the time prior to Vatican II. It was good, very good and reverant in all aspects. If one can tell me now that there is that kind of faith and reverance I would like to have them tell me that I might understand. I do not think they can.

God Bless all
Thomas…
twmaGb

Dissenters of any age, younger, older, middle need to get over themselves. Feelings have NOTHING to do with Faith. Feeling at ease might make one ‘more comfy’ in one’s faith but faith is all about BELIEF, and not ever about feelings.

Faith grows through grace - not through comfort.

“All depends on faith. Everything is grace.”
—from the Epistles of Paul. Look it up if you wish.

 

[SFD]

Dissenters of any age, younger, older, middle need to get over themselves. Feelings have NOTHING to do with Faith. Feeling at ease might make one ‘more comfy’ in one’s faith but faith is all about BELIEF, and not ever about feelings.

Faith grows through grace - not through comfort.

“All depends on faith. Everything is grace.”
—from the Epistles of Paul. Look it up if you wish.

The problems are doctrinal in nature. Most traditionalists know this and their position has nothing to do with feelings…that’s for the liberals to claim.

SFD

 

[catharina]

The problems are doctrinal in nature. Most traditionalists know this and their position has nothing to do with feelings…that’s for the liberals to claim.

SFD

Take it up with samhot, Post 76. The issue is his/hers, not mine.

 

[SFD]

Take it up with samhot, Post 76. The issue is his/hers, not mine.

samoht’s post 76 was not about only “feelings”. You misrepresented that because he used the word “feel” instead of “think”. His post was about what people think based on what they have observed.

samoht:

They are concerned loving faithful **people who see things **that should never have come to pass.

samoht:

They are probably like me who grew up in the 40’s and saw how wonderful the reverance and faithfullness was during the time prior to Vatican II. It was good, very good and reverant in all aspects.

SFD