Post or Pre Vatican II

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sftyvlv1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sftyvlv1

Guest
I have a hard time trying to figure out which part of the church I should follow pre Vatican II or post Vatican II it seems pre Vatican II is far more conservative then post Vatican II and of course post Vatican II seems to be much more liberal which is right and what should I do as far as following the teachings of the church
 
Last edited:
The teachings of the Church haven’t changed, so there’s no conflict.

It’s true that the Church generally spoke more clearly in the past. Thus pre-council sources are usually better, because they are more clear, not because the Church teaches otherwise today.
 
How about following the Church Jesus Christ founded and hasn’t changed in 2,000 years regardless of ‘pre’ or ‘post’ anything?
 
Last edited:
Arkansan said:
It’s true that the Church generally spoke more clearly in the past. Thus pre-council sources are usually better, because they are more clear, not because the Church teaches otherwise today.
Click to expand...
The Holy Spirit that speaks of yesterday is the same Holy Spirit that speaks of today.
 
That doesn’t refute anything I said. There’s nothing in the Church’s indefectibility which guarantees that the bishops will speak with equal clarity at all times.
 
Arkansan said:
There’s nothing in the Church’s indefectibility which guarantees that the bishops will speak with equal clarity at all times.
Click to expand...
When the Bishop of Rome speaks infallibly, any seeming ambiguity falls on those who misunderstand.
 
By definition, infallible statements require definitive form (“I define that . . .”, “I condemn . . .”, etc.), so that is true by definition.

In any case, the issue isn’t infallible declarations, it’s pronouncements of the ordinary magisterium and (even more so) non-magisterial theological discourse.
 
The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types – the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins.
Click to expand...
Recognize those in the Church who rush forward, and those who guild the past. Neither are correct. Every era has its errors. And recognize that you’ll likely follow a few misguided voices yourself. Listen for Christ’s voice and do your best. This is an area where your effort matters a lot.
 
Pick your topic: spousal obedience, the duty of employers to pay a family wage to heads of households, the inspiration of Scripture, etc.

Theological discourse on a great many topics has deteriorated in terms of clarity. If you still don’t get what I mean, look in pre-council encyclicals or widely used theological manuals (how many of those have been written since the council?) for explanations of the doctrine of the Church. Then look in post-council encyclicals or the writings of theologians. The former are generally more clear than the latter.
 
Arkansan said:
Pick your topic: spousal obedience, the duty of employers to pay a family wage to heads of households, the inspiration of Scripture, etc.

Theological discourse on a great many topics has deteriorated in terms of clarity. If you still don’t get what I mean, look in pre-council encyclicals or widely used theological manuals (how many of those have been written since the council?) for explanations of the doctrine of the Church. Then look in post-council encyclicals or the writings of theologians. The former are generally more clear than the latter.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the writings of the Church Fathers pre-Nicaea (325AD) are clearer?
 
Last edited:
I’m not very familiar with early patristics. Not sure what that has to do with anything.
 
Encyclicals, theological manuals, etc. written before Vatican II. I thought that was obvious.
 
The FULLNESS of God’s truths were FAR more evident in the Pre Vatican II, OFTEN not desired by ROME changes and innovations. I lived through both.

The numbers of priest, religious, churches and Catholic Schools have ALL taken steep declines in the POST Vatican II church. Many Catholic Schools are no longer even taught by Religious. And the severe LACK of priestly vocations is from a weakening FAITH throughout the USA Catholic-populace.

IF you are able to locate an Extraordinary Form [Latin MAss] Parish near you; check it out.

While piety is a PERSONAL thing; it is also a TAUGHT condition.

May GOD guide your path,
Patrick
 
Arkansan said:
Encyclicals, theological manuals, etc. written before Vatican II
Click to expand...
That’s exactly what I thought you meant. To say that “[e]ncyclicals, theological manuals, etc. written before Vatican II” are clearer than those after Vatican II is mere opinion and, at least to me, suggested a contrast in magisterial promulgation, which seems divisive
 
http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_SP_Ripperger.html

“…The impression is given that the teachings of the previous Magisterium cannot stand on their own and must be given some form of “relevance” by being promulgated anew in a current document. Moreover, the current documents often lack the clarity and succinctness of the prior Magisterium, and, with relatively few exceptions, are exceedingly long and tedious to read in their entirety. As a result, the frequency of the documents, taken together with their length, have eroded their authority because, as a general rule, people simply do not have the emotional or psychological discipline to plow through them…”

In the prior paragraphs to this, Fr. Ripperger speaks of the effect of immanentism, Hegelianism and the consequences of ignoring extrinsic tradition.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top