A
Aslan10
Guest
I’m assuming you quoted me because you see the same problems?
- Status
A
Aslan10
Guest
You’re going to have to be a little bit more descriptive than that. haha.
K
KP3243
Guest
I feel like I have seen enough efforts recently at the diocesan and parish level to help people understand Vatican II and the documents because I think there is a very broad misunderstanding of them although I feel like it is 40 years too late but better late than never. I went to one of the classes at my church and this one guy was adamant about something I forget what is was now but I remember thinking the whole time he was talking, what you are saying and trying to convince yourself of is the heresy of Modernism which the Friar who was doing the presentation in an extraordinarily nice way basically said as much to the man. I think the a lot of Catholics in the US and Europe hung their hats on this theory that it was in the spirit of Vatican II. I am a twenty something Catholic so I missed the 60s, 70s and most of the 80s really don’t remember anything before 1997 so I can’t speak of the vast changes that my parents would have seen but simple things like the sisters getting rid of their habits and wearing regular clothing while it doesn’t seem like a big deal greatly affected things in my generation. It seems that if the church loosen things or drops the ball, society follows suit. We don’t dress up for mass any more it somehow gets translated as mass really isn’t all that important.
I
Indifferently
Guest
They are going to claim that we are not technically outside the “Catholic Church” because we have been baptized with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
But what they will have to explain is the fact that what the original statements meant has been changed to suit the opinions of the fathers of Vatican 2. i.e. the RC Church not only claims to be infallible, she claims this infallibility even when she changes her mind.
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
Well if I am not outside the Church then why deny me communion?
S
Stilldreamn
Guest
So then. In actuality, I am a baptized, but unconfirmed cafeteria Catholic?
OK, I got it!
P
Peter_J
Guest
I think a full answer to this question would be difficult. But you can get a pretty good idea if you consider their insistence on “ecumenism of return”.
I recently came across this blog-post. Note the outraged comments at the idea of rejecting “ecumenism of return”.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
Well, it should be no surprise that the Catholic Church generally takes a different tone to Protestants today than in centuries past because history had elapsed and circumstances have changed. The Catholic-Protestant divide is now a cemented reality and it would be negligent for the Church to pretend that all it has to do to heal the effects of the Reformers’ heresies and schisms is to triumphantly shout down from its tower simply that Protestantism is a heresy (a, by now, well-established fact) without any further action to seek reconciliation. Now, a term like “heretic” does not simply signify one who holds heretical beliefs if he cannot be totally faulted for holding them, such as if he was brought up in heresy as St. Augustine notes.
A critical reading of the documents of Vatican II will reveal that the Church did not chnage its teaching on the salvation of non-Catholics, as they nowere state that salvation can be had outside of the Catholic Church. They affirm that the Church entirely subsists in the Catholic Church and that all salvation is through the Church. It is possible that someone can be saved who is not visibly in communion with the Church, but this was the teaching before Vatican II. If any non-Catholic will ever be saved, it is not in virtue of his Protestantism or anything-ism, but in virtue of his cooperation with the grace given to him, which infallibly leads to the bosom of the Catholic Church.
As for your two “contradictions,” the answer to the first is that (1) UR does not state that any non-Catholics will be saved, and (2) Florence does not have in mind “heretics” in the simple sense of one who believes mistakenly, i.e. is “materially” a heretic, if he is not culpable for his mistaken beliefs, which is the traditional teaching. I do not see at all how the second example can even be seen as a contradiction since a prayer for unity is in no way a repudiation of the Catholic faith. What would be scandalous is indifferentism about Christian disunity, as if denominations are all equal to one another without regard for Christian orthodoxy. Prayer for unity is surely pleasing in God’s sight as his Son prayed for the same before he was betrayed.
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
P
Peter_J
Guest
Indeed, I believe that every joint Catholic-Protestant statement that I’ve ever read begins with "We, the members of the Catholic Church and the adherents to the Protestant heresy, together declare that … "
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
Well, like I said, the Catholic Church takes an Augustinian view of our Protestant bretheren. 
The Apostle Paul has said: A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sins, being condemned of himself. But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics. Were it not that I believe you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you. And yet even in the case of a heretic, however puffed up with odious conceit, and insane through the obstinacy of his wicked resistance to truth, although we warn others to avoid him, so that he may not deceive the weak and inexperienced, we do not refuse to strive by every means in our power for his correction. On this ground I wrote even to some of the chief of the Donatists, not indeed letters of communion, which on account of their perversity they have long ceased to receive from the undivided Catholic Church which is spread throughout the world, but letters of a private kind, such as we may send even to pagans. These letters, however, though they have sometimes read them, they have not been willing, or perhaps it is more probable, have not been able, to answer. In these cases, it seems to me that I have discharged the obligation laid on me by that love which the Holy Spirit teaches us to render, not only to our own, but to all, saying by the apostle: The Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men. In another place we are warned that those who are of a different opinion from us must be corrected with meekness, if God perhaps will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
I have said these things by way of preface, lest any one should think, because you are not of our communion, that I have been influenced by forwardness rather than consideration in sending this letter, and in desiring thus to confer with you regarding the welfare of the soul; though I believe that, if I were writing to you about an affair of property, or the settlement of some dispute about money, no one would find fault with me. So precious is this world in the esteem of men, and so small is the value which they set upon themselves! This letter, therefore, shall be a witness in my vindication at the bar of God, who knows the spirit in which I write, and who has said: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the sons of God.
-Augustine, Letter 43
newadvent.org/fathers/1102043.htm
The Apostle Paul has said: A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sins, being condemned of himself. But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics. Were it not that I believe you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you. And yet even in the case of a heretic, however puffed up with odious conceit, and insane through the obstinacy of his wicked resistance to truth, although we warn others to avoid him, so that he may not deceive the weak and inexperienced, we do not refuse to strive by every means in our power for his correction. On this ground I wrote even to some of the chief of the Donatists, not indeed letters of communion, which on account of their perversity they have long ceased to receive from the undivided Catholic Church which is spread throughout the world, but letters of a private kind, such as we may send even to pagans. These letters, however, though they have sometimes read them, they have not been willing, or perhaps it is more probable, have not been able, to answer. In these cases, it seems to me that I have discharged the obligation laid on me by that love which the Holy Spirit teaches us to render, not only to our own, but to all, saying by the apostle: The Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men. In another place we are warned that those who are of a different opinion from us must be corrected with meekness, if God perhaps will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
I have said these things by way of preface, lest any one should think, because you are not of our communion, that I have been influenced by forwardness rather than consideration in sending this letter, and in desiring thus to confer with you regarding the welfare of the soul; though I believe that, if I were writing to you about an affair of property, or the settlement of some dispute about money, no one would find fault with me. So precious is this world in the esteem of men, and so small is the value which they set upon themselves! This letter, therefore, shall be a witness in my vindication at the bar of God, who knows the spirit in which I write, and who has said: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the sons of God.
-Augustine, Letter 43
newadvent.org/fathers/1102043.htm
P
Peter_J
Guest
I have found that, in practice, I’m often less troubled by those who strictly “traditionalist” Catholics than by Catholic who are “traditionalist” in some ways but not in others.
It’s partly because the latter group is significantly larger than the former; but there’s more to it than that – which unfortunately I’m not sure how to explain, but perhaps some posters here know what I’m talking about.
It’s partly because the latter group is significantly larger than the former; but there’s more to it than that – which unfortunately I’m not sure how to explain, but perhaps some posters here know what I’m talking about.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
By the first group, do you mean the “traditionalist Catholics” who spend all their time on line whining about every little thing the bishops do and say that attending the new mass is sinful?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Probably needs a bit more elaboration. I sort of get what you are saying, but, just to be certain.
B
benjohnson
Guest
Here in Seattle - most Catholics are pretty much secular, so a traditionalist Catholic is a breath of fresh air> Usually after a conversation we view each other well. Frankly, it’s easier to dialog with them than most Cafeteria Catholics that grew up in the faith and insist that they know the faith yet go contrary to just about everything in the CCC.
There is a particular type of “Traditionalist” that seems to have made an idol out of the Church that can be difficult, but then my feisty Lutheran side comes out and I have to admit that enjoy the sparing.
There is a particular type of “Traditionalist” that seems to have made an idol out of the Church that can be difficult, but then my feisty Lutheran side comes out and I have to admit that enjoy the sparing.
J
JustaServant
Guest
Like I said earlier, that depends on your definition of “traditionalist”. It seems to mean different things to different people. When I explain what SSPX types mean by tradition, they tend to say “Oh heavens, no. That’s not what I am”. Heck, at last week’s RCIA our priest, giving the Mass times for Christmas said “and we have Midnight Mass for the traditionalists.”
The problem is, the word has been hijacked by some to mean a certain group. And they really have no claim to the word.
How would you describe a “traditionalist Lutheran”?
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
Traditionalism historically refers to a specfic philosophical view (hence the “ism”), that we cannot know truth except by first receiving handed-down truths by an act of faith prior to any act of reason, which is simply a kind of fideism. Read the following article from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
newadvent.org/cathen/15013a.htm
Of course, this could only loosely be applied to the phenomenon of Catholic traditionalism. Nevertheless, traditionalism must be given a better definition simply than someone who likes traditional things.
newadvent.org/cathen/15013a.htm
Of course, this could only loosely be applied to the phenomenon of Catholic traditionalism. Nevertheless, traditionalism must be given a better definition simply than someone who likes traditional things.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Pssst…Post #54 Crickets?
1] No one knows what you are… troubled about.
2] No one knows what you are talking about, here…“Traditional”.
- Status