Question about people that follow vatican 1

[Abu]

O Sapientia #17
It is because the Ordinary Magisterium exercised by the Second Vatican Council was not infallible and it is liable to clarification, correction or outright suppression. Where the Church speaks on issues such as the Real Presence it is simply repeating defined dogma. But when the council posits something new, whether a development of an old doctrine such as salvation outside of the Church, or religious liberty, it is only an exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium. If someone tries but cannot see how they can be reconciled, they are not bound under pain of sin to assent.

False.

“….definitive theological judgments of the ordinary Magisterium, are every bit as binding in Faith as are exercises of the extraordinary Magisterium. Both are protected by the Church’s charism of infallibility, exercised by those who hold supreme pastoral office in the Church (the Pope, or the College of Bishops in union with the Pope), so that the Church remains indefectibility in her faith and her sacraments — something absolutely necessary for her salvific mission, and guaranteed by Christ (cf. Mt. 28: 18-21).
Colin B. Donovan, STL
ewtn.com/library/doctrine/TRIGINFL.HTM

The Holy Father was specifically addressing U.S. Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987:
“It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.”

The reality is that Bl John Paul II has taught clearly in his Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998, the three levels of teaching, thus:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25), not an assent of faith.

Dissent is totally ruled out by the CDF, naturally.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ruled very clearly and no fudging can obscure the reality. Sections 25-31 cover “not irreformable” teaching even for theologians in the Instruction On The Ecclesial Vocation Of The Theologian, (Donum Veritatis) [DV] 1990, for those who “feel” that they cannot give “intellectual assent,” they have “the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question.” (31).

*Donum Veritatis *completely rules out all dissent:
“30. If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian’s part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments.”

“32. The Magisterium has drawn attention several times to the serious harm done to the community of the Church by attitudes of general opposition to Church teaching which even come to expression in organized groups. In his apostolic exhortation *Paterna cum benevolentia *[1974], Paul VI offered a diagnosis of this problem which is still apropos. In particular, he addresses here that public opposition to the Magisterium of the Church also called “dissent”, which must be distinguished from the situation of personal difficulties treated above. The phenomenon of dissent can have diverse forms. Its remote and proximate causes are multiple.”
#36. “The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent.”

While #37 has this further caution:
“Moreover, the theologian who is not disposed to think with the Church (sentire cum Ecclesia) contradicts the commitment he freely and knowingly accepted to teach in the name of the Church.

 

[Saints_Alive]

Pope BXVI on the issue …

The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

 

[Theophorus]

Not so fast. Don’t forget our brethren of the sui iuris Chaldean Catholic Church!

Yours in Jesus and Mary,
OS.

You do know that they aren’t Nestorians? They accept the Christological definitions of the Council of Chalcedon.

 

[kim_zef]

Sedevacantists—those that condemn the Second Vatican Council as heretical, and do not accept the post-Conciliar Popes as valid Pontiffs—have valid albeit schismatic Masses and the Real Presence is truly there on their altars.

In the years that followed the Second Vatican Council there was a lot of chaos and disorder and Rome and the world’s bishops did not handle the situation as well as they could have and should have. This created an atmosphere of confusion. Saying that though does not absolve sedevacantists of the state of schism that they have placed themselves in. But it does stand as a testament to the burden of leadership on our pastors.

Pray for them that they may once again return to the Barque of Peter.

A sedevacantist would agree completely with Unum Sanctum. They would simply respond that Pope Francis is not the real Pope.

Yours in Jesus and Mary,
OS.

There are a growing number of Catholics in good
standing who believe Pope Francis was not
canonically elected and therefore Pope Benedict
still reigns. Check out Fr. Paul Kramer at Catholic
Concepts.

 

[agnes_therese]

There are a growing number of Catholics in good
standing who believe Pope Francis was not
canonically elected and therefore Pope Benedict
still reigns. Check out Fr. Paul Kramer at Catholic
Concepts.

Then they are in grave danger of changing that “good standing.”

 

[Withburga]

There are a growing number of Catholics in good
standing who believe Pope Francis was not
canonically elected and therefore Pope Benedict
still reigns. Check out Fr. Paul Kramer at Catholic
Concepts.

This would be the same site that claims that Pope Francis is a servant of the Freemasons and that President Obama is the false prophet predicted in the book of Revelation, right?

(Not to mention the fact that it routinely claims for itself the privileges of the CDF by deciding which Church leaders deserve the title of ‘heretic’ ).

The first resort of those with schismatic mindsets, it seems, is to rewrite canon law in such a way that either:

a. it doesn’t apply to those people you support, thereby releasing them from a penalty or disciplinary act to which they are subject

or:

b. it applies in some strange unheard-of way to those people whom you dislike, thereby invalidating some action or belief of theirs

In this case, the argument is that the canonically proper resignation of Pope Benedict and the equally proper election of his successor were the result of coercion of the former to resign, thereby invalidating the whole process.

I think not, myself.

In Christ,
Withburga

 

[JamesTheJust]

This.

I suggest you read some more about infallibility in the context of the Magisterium. It’s not so clean-cut. Indeed it means “teaching authority”. However, it is not dictatorial. One is called to give full assent, but to give assent does not mean to be in agreement. I can give assent to God’s will out of obedience, even if I disagree with something or are not inclined to do so.

In fact, why do you think councils and synods are called? Why do you think there are theologians calling for a “reform of the reform” on the liturgy? Because there are matters which need to be further worked on. People disagree on important aspects and want them to be addressed. This is no “dissent”. In fact, there is more “dissent” in someone pushing for an all-vernacular Mass (contrary to the dogmatic constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium of Vatican II) than in someone arguing that some ecumenical activities justified under the Vatican II umbrella are being carried out in an erroneous way.

What matters is respect for authority. We can argue that a pastoral statement needs clarification. In fact, if it did not work pastorally, it may need to just be entirely reconsidered. That is, we can disagree. But we cannot dissent from the authority. Meaning we cannot say: the documents of Vatican II include heresy, Pope X has taught heresy, etc. That is indeed a schismatic attitude. But to disagree on certain conclusions and interpretations drawn after the council was closed, or on certain initiatives carried out after the council and justified by the “spirit” of the council? That’s not schismatic at all. The issue is not the Magisterium. It is the interpretation that people who are not the Magisterium make of Magisterial teachings, and the application of their interpretations.

I think Abu answered this quite nicely.

 

[O_Sapientia]

I would just like to clarify my comments on the Ordinary Magisterium. I do not in any sense whatsoever advocate public dissent from the Magisterium of the Church, extraordinary, ordinary, fallible or infallible. We have an obligation to assent to the Ordinary Magisterium exercised by the Second Vatican Council.

If one has difficulties—and I readily admit that I struggle to reconcile the teachings of the Council with the defined and revealed dogmas of the Church—then they should try their best to understand with the mind of the Church. If they cannot then they just accept that they cannot and wait and pray.

Furthermore theologians do have a right to appropriately question the Ordinary Magisterium and discuss with the Church. The Church grants this right to those properly trained to do so. And of course there are boundaries to this. You cannot air it out in public, you cannot use your opposition as a grounds to oppose the legitimate authority of the Church, etc. I am not arguing that groups such as the SSPX are justified or that their actions are right.

I am simply saying that those that have trouble with the Ordinary Magisterium of the Second Vatican Council should not be demonised. If we struggle with concepts then the Church is obligated to charitably help such individuals reconcile their understanding as far as possible.

On a closing note I stand by my caveat that the Ordinary Magisterium of the Council is not infallible. I believe that this will be important to understand in the future.

There are a growing number of Catholics in good
standing who believe Pope Francis was not
canonically elected and therefore Pope Benedict
still reigns. Check out Fr. Paul Kramer at Catholic
Concepts.

Father Kramer is not in good standing and he believes that Pope Francis is an anti-Pope because of manifest heresy in his Apostolic Exhortation, not because of canonical irregularity in his election. The man has entered a state of schism and faithful Catholics must pray for him.

Yours in Jesus and Mary,
OS.

 

[R_C]

I think Abu answered this quite nicely.

Actually, I think he entirely missed the point of my statement.

The issue is not dissent with the Magisterium. That would be nonsense.

The issue is dissent with the interpretations of the teachings of the Magisterium, and initiatives brought forth based on those interpretations. I even brought forth examples. Qui habet aures audiendi audiat.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Actually, I think he entirely missed the point of my statement.

The issue is not dissent with the Magisterium. That would be nonsense.

The issue is dissent with the interpretations of the teachings of the Magisterium, and initiatives brought forth based on those interpretations. I even brought forth examples. Qui habet aures audiendi audiat.

Sorry, I must have understood your earlier post.

I suppose that fighting against liturgical abuses that have come about after Vatican II, not because of Vatican II, is permissible, perhaps even encouraged. Many have misinterpreted the Council’s documents and decrees to mean things which they do not, and liturgical abuses as well as moral or spiritual laxity has come about due to this. However, to say that the Novus Ordo is heretical, or to say so of anything else promulgated by the Council, as properly understood, is schismatic.

 

[Abu]

O Sapientia #28
I stand by my caveat that the Ordinary Magisterium of the Council is not infallible.

Which does not excuse ANYONE from that loyal submission of the will and intellect required.

The reality is that Bl John Paul II has taught clearly in his Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, the fact from Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25, that non-definitive (non-infallible) doctrine requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”), not an assent of faith.

The development of doctrine by Vatican II requires this submission of intellect and will. And Donum Veritatis, 1990, #23, reaffirmed: “When the Magisterium, not intending to act “definitively”, teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect.(23) This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.”
Note:
(23) Cf. Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, n. 25; Code of Canon Law, can. 752

 

[R_C]

Sorry, I must have understood your earlier post.

I suppose that fighting against liturgical abuses that have come about after Vatican II, not because of Vatican II, is permissible, perhaps even encouraged. Many have misinterpreted the Council’s documents and decrees to mean things which they do not, and liturgical abuses as well as moral or spiritual laxity has come about due to this. However, to say that the Novus Ordo is heretical, or to say so of anything else promulgated by the Council, as properly understood, is schismatic.

I agree on both conclusions, but for different reasons: the Novus Ordo Missae has in itself little or nothing to do with the Vatican II. It was prepared and approved afterwards by the authority of the Pope.

Now, it is clearly schismatic in position to take any line from Conciliar documents and claim it is heresy, and it is schismatic to do the same from the new Roman Missal, or worse, to declare it invalid.

It is not schismatic to take the interpretation that some have proposed of certain Conciliar documents and claim it is erroneous; it is not schismatic to point at events and initiatives based on someone’s interpretations of certain Conciliar documents, and claim they are erroneous. I mean: it could be a mistake, but it would not be a schismatic act.

Concerning the Mass, it is not schismatic to point out when someone is celebrating in a way that is not even in accordance with the approved Novus Ordo Missae. It is not schismatic to say certain ways of celebrating Mass are a break with tradition. It is not schismatic to point out certain translations to the vernacular leave much to be desired (also for the new Liturgy of the Hours).

To avoid protracting the discussion: I’ll add on my side that those of us who still recall Vatican I, who read the Oath against Modernism, who attend legitimate diocesan celebrations of the Usus Antiquor of the Roman Rite, and who from time to time walk out of the “little 40-year room” of Vatican II and post-Vatican II documents and take a step into the vast 1900-years-old library of previous liturgical practices, papal, and conciliar documents, most definitely “see” more than others can see. This is not a matter of pride, it’s a fact of life, and an evangelical truth (Mt 13:12). They also carry a very big burden, because they also “see” much better what is not being done perfectly right, and even what is being done wrong, which others, simply not knowing better, assume that’s the Catholic way and the Catholic belief. And, well, it may be part of it, or a distorted part of it, but there is much more. To say that is not schismatic!

 

[agnes_therese]

To avoid protracting the discussion: I’ll add on my side that those of us who still recall Vatican I, who read the Oath against Modernism, who attend legitimate diocesan celebrations of the Usus Antiquor of the Roman Rite, and who from time to time walk out of the “little 40-year room” of Vatican II and post-Vatican II documents and take a step into the vast 1900-years-old library of previous liturgical practices, papal, and conciliar documents, most definitely “see” more than others can see. This is not a matter of pride, it’s a fact of life, and an evangelical truth (Mt 13:12). They also carry a very big burden, because they also “see” much better what is not being done perfectly right, and even what is being done wrong, which others, simply not knowing better, assume that’s the Catholic way and the Catholic belief. And, well, it may be part of it, or a distorted part of it, but there is much more. To say that is not schismatic!

No, I would agree that it’s not schismatic. But I think it may be underestimating (or maybe mis-estimating would be a better term) those of us who primarily attend the Ordinary Form. You seem to think we don’t know about “the vast 1900-years-old library of previous liturgical practices, papal, and conciliar documents,” and that we don’t see “what is not being done perfectly right, and even what is being done wrong.”

And that is simply untrue.

 

[R_C]

No, I would agree that it’s not schismatic. But I think it may be underestimating (or maybe mis-estimating would be a better term) those of us who primarily attend the Ordinary Form. You seem to think we don’t know about “the vast 1900-years-old library of previous liturgical practices, papal, and conciliar documents,” and that we don’t see “what is not being done perfectly right, and even what is being done wrong.”

And that is simply untrue.

Well, many do not. Many refuse to even look into pre-Vatican II. I’ve been told in my face. Many don’t even quite read into the post-VII documents. We know we have an issue of catechesis in the Church, and an issue of nominal vs. practicing Catholics. So forgive me, but as untrue as it may be to you, I have solid reason to believe that off the small percentage of actually practicing Catholics, only a much smaller percentage has taken time and effort to learn about the teachings and practices of the Church before, say, 1950. And if they did do so in a considerate effort, then I sympathize with them, for they, too, must have become very uncomfortable at the sight of a lot of things, reaching an unprecedented awareness of the good that was cast aside, and of the not-so-good that was brought in by violence in the name of a much fallible and quite feeble “spirit of the Council”.

 

[R_C]

Here is an interesting exercise of sight. Read the following two pre-conciliar quote and an extensive quote from a VII document.

“Although they express their astonishment that We should number them among the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so…Nor indeed would he be wrong in regarding [modernists] as the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For, as We have said, they put into operation their designs for her undoing, not from without but from within. [Modernists say] religion… must…admit of some explanation…looked for in man; and since religion is a form of life, the explanation must certainly be found in the life of man. …] Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and clearly flows from their principles. …] every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true…Indeed, Modernists do not deny, but actually maintain, some confusedly, others frankly, that all religions are true. …] And now with Our eyes fixed upon the whole system, no one will be surprised that We should define it to be the synthesis of all heresies.” - s. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis

“the organic constitution of the Church is immutable and unlike human society, Christian society is not subject to a perpetual evolution” - Pope Pius X, Lamentabili Sane

"The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, teaches and rules the priestly people …]

This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church…and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church…presiding in place of God over the flock, whose shepherds they are, as teachers for doctrine, priests for sacred worship, and ministers for governing…

The laity should, as all Christians, promptly accept in Christian obedience decisions of their spiritual shepherds, since they are representatives of Christ as well as teachers and rulers in the Church"

“The term laity is here understood to mean all the faithful except those in holy orders and those in the state of religious life …] They also have for their brothers those in the sacred ministry who by teaching, by sanctifying and by ruling with the authority of Christ feed the family of God …The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, teaches and rules the priestly people” - Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium

Now read the following recent quotes from a very high-level leader of our Church, cardinal Oscar Madarriaga.

The Second Vatican Council…meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and modernism…Modernism was, most of the time, a reaction against injustices and abuses that disparaged the dignity and the rights of the person. …]

Within the people, there is not a dual classification of Christians –laity and clergy, essentially different…To speak correctly, we should not speak of clergy and laity, but instead of community and ministry. All the baptized are consecrated as a spiritual house and a holy priesthood…This change in the concept of priesthood is a fundamental one …The original priesthood of Jesus is the one that has to be continued…Fifty years have passed since these ideas were first proclaimed.

…] the Church is on her way to become a universal Church …]

The new thought of the Vatican II Council had been slowly brewing in the Christian conscience, and the time had come to articulate it clearly …]

1.- Returning to Christ…There is no possible reform of the Church without a return to Jesus. …]

1. With the New Evangelization we restart (start anew)…Salvation comes from Jesus, not from the Church. … Her calling is to serve, not to rule…She must do this service living in the world, herself a part of the world and in solidarity with it …]

3 Returning to the Church as “communion”…in other words, making equality among the members of the Church a reality … The communion of the Church is vital for her to be able to acquire credibility in today’s society. But this is not mere democratization; it is working to achieve an authentic coexistence as brothers and equals. And this goal certainly cannot be attained through a hierarchic mindset, understanding the Ministerial Order as a superior presbyterium, privileged and exclusive, in the way that it appeared to be configured, with absolute power concentrated at the apex and delegated down to the rest of the tiers of the hierarchy. … Vatican II does not make the foundations of the Church into a polarizing outline of two extremes, “clergy-laity,” … A presbyter is, above all, a “minister of the Word,” … and for that reason devotes himself primarily to the altar and to the celebration of the sacraments. …]

1. Returning to a profoundly humane Church that will establish a new relationship with the world …The Church could not continue posing as a reality facing the world… strengthening her walls against the errors and the influence of the world. … There are many texts where the council speaks of “building a bridge to the world,” of “wanting to engage in dialogue with it,” … The council opened with enormous sympathy to the world … The Church did not have a monopoly on truth anymore … she should go out into the common arena, plainly and humbly, and share in the common search for truth…to count on the contribution of humanisms and of non-Christian religions …What is Christian has its substrata, first and foremost, in what is human…The Christian identity should be built on a par with what is truly human …]

 

[JamesTheJust]

I agree on both conclusions, but for different reasons: the Novus Ordo Missae has in itself little or nothing to do with the Vatican II. It was prepared and approved afterwards by the authority of the Pope.

Now, it is clearly schismatic in position to take any line from Conciliar documents and claim it is heresy, and it is schismatic to do the same from the new Roman Missal, or worse, to declare it invalid.

It is not schismatic to take the interpretation that some have proposed of certain Conciliar documents and claim it is erroneous; it is not schismatic to point at events and initiatives based on someone’s interpretations of certain Conciliar documents, and claim they are erroneous. I mean: it could be a mistake, but it would not be a schismatic act.

Concerning the Mass, it is not schismatic to point out when someone is celebrating in a way that is not even in accordance with the approved Novus Ordo Missae. It is not schismatic to say certain ways of celebrating Mass are a break with tradition. It is not schismatic to point out certain translations to the vernacular leave much to be desired (also for the new Liturgy of the Hours).

To avoid protracting the discussion: I’ll add on my side that those of us who still recall Vatican I, who read the Oath against Modernism, who attend legitimate diocesan celebrations of the Usus Antiquor of the Roman Rite, and who from time to time walk out of the “little 40-year room” of Vatican II and post-Vatican II documents and take a step into the vast 1900-years-old library of previous liturgical practices, papal, and conciliar documents, most definitely “see” more than others can see. This is not a matter of pride, it’s a fact of life, and an evangelical truth (Mt 13:12). They also carry a very big burden, because they also “see” much better what is not being done perfectly right, and even what is being done wrong, which others, simply not knowing better, assume that’s the Catholic way and the Catholic belief. And, well, it may be part of it, or a distorted part of it, but there is much more. To say that is not schismatic!

It would seem, then, that we agree on something. To do what you describe is not schismatic. However, I think that your ideas about those who regularly attend the Novus Ordo are incorrect. I am one of that crowd and, if you visit my profile, you’ll see that I greatly admire St Pius X. I have read his Oath against Modernism, and I am currently working my way through his encyclicals.

 

[Abu]

It is regrettable, but since when has even “a very high-level leader of our Church” been immune from error?

Bl John Paul II noted in Fides et Ratio, 1998:
“54. In our own century too the Magisterium has revisited the theme on a number of occasions, warning against the lure of rationalism. Here the pronouncements of Pope Saint Pius X are pertinent, stressing as they did that at the basis of Modernism were philosophical claims which were phenomenist, agnostic and immanentist.(66) Nor can the importance of the Catholic rejection of Marxist philosophy and atheistic Communism be forgotten.(67)

“87. In theological enquiry, historicism tends to appear for the most part under the guise of “modernism”. Rightly concerned to make theological discourse relevant and understandable to our time, some theologians use only the most recent opinions and philosophical language, ignoring the critical evaluation which ought to be made of them in the light of the tradition. By exchanging relevance for truth, this form of modernism shows itself incapable of satisfying the demands of truth to which theology is called to respond.”

Writing in 1978, Msgr Eugene Kevane referred to the phenomenon of Religious Modernism “in which priests and professors on the level, of Catholic higher education have been engaged for approximately 200 years.” The Faith and Theologies, in The Teaching Church in Our Time, Daughters of St Paul, 1978, p 34].

 

[R_C]

It would seem, then, that we agree on something. To do what you describe is not schismatic. However, I think that your ideas about those who regularly attend the Novus Ordo are incorrect. I am one of that crowd and, if you visit my profile, you’ll see that I greatly admire St Pius X. I have read his Oath against Modernism, and I am currently working my way through his encyclicals.

I admit I may be unjust by generalizing the way I am generalizing. However, I would be way too naive if I were to generalize your efforts at gaining a greater knowledge of our Catholic teachings considering you “one of that crowd”. I know sectors of that crowd in several countries. Small groups, but still a decent sample. Besides what we learn from reading books etc. The picture is neither as dark as some like to depict it, nor as bright as others like to depict it. And mind you, I have the deepest love and respect for those who regularly attend Holy Mass. I love and respect all men. But I simply know the vast majority of Catholics have a problem of catechesis and formation. This, at least, is the insight of the Holy See and of the US bishops in particular (let’s not even talk about the situation in my native Europe).

“The focus of the New Evangelization calls all Catholics to be evangelized…‘re-proposing’ the Gospel to those who have experienced a crisis of faith.Pope Benedict XVI called for the re-proposing of the Gospel…o those regions where the roots of Christianity are deep but who have experienced a serious crisis of faith due to secularization.”…The 2008 Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) study…provides a glimpse into the beliefs, practices and attitudes of U.S. Catholics. According to the study, only 23% of U.S. Catholics regularly attend Mass once a week…These statistics point to the need for the New Evangelization. - USCCB

Mind you, I am too “one of the crowd”. I am simply learning more and more and desiring that others would too. If anything (back to original point) in order to at least experience a greater compassion for “people that follow vatican 1” (not really) and have moved away in their radicalism from communion with the Holy Father.

It is regrettable, but since when has even “a very high-level leader of our Church” been immune from error?

Since never The point would be: of the hundreds who heard this speech, and of the thousands (I am being an optimist now) who read it later, how many people noticed that there were some peculiar interpretations of Conciliar documents and theological matters being passed on? How many felt like breaking into a cold sweat? I have nothing against anyone, but similar things are heard all across the room, and some words translate into actions, and both the words and the actions carry on top a Vatican II flag that discourage anyone from any sort of criticism, lest they be labeled as staunch rad-trads leaning towards schism Unless we learn more about what has been taught, in and before the second Vatican council, we too risk to miss those subtleties and, regardless of our good desires and our good intentions to do God’s will, we may end up unwillingly carrying something that is a mere interpretation of Catholic teachings. Or we may fail to justly and constructively criticize words or deeds that are conciliar only exteriorly, but interiorly are based on something else, afraid that their criticism would be against “the Council” or “the Pope” or “the Church” (!).

Bl John Paul II noted in Fides et Ratio, 1998:
“54. In our own century too the Magisterium has revisited the theme on a number of occasions, warning against the lure of rationalism. Here the pronouncements of Pope Saint Pius X are pertinent, stressing as they did that at the basis of Modernism were philosophical claims which were phenomenist, agnostic and immanentist.(66) Nor can the importance of the Catholic rejection of Marxist philosophy and atheistic Communism be forgotten.(67)

“87. In theological enquiry, historicism tends to appear for the most part under the guise of “modernism”. Rightly concerned to make theological discourse relevant and understandable to our time, some theologians use only the most recent opinions and philosophical language, ignoring the critical evaluation which ought to be made of them in the light of the tradition. By exchanging relevance for truth, this form of modernism shows itself incapable of satisfying the demands of truth to which theology is called to respond.”

Writing in 1978, Msgr Eugene Kevane referred to the phenomenon of Religious Modernism “in which priests and professors on the level, of Catholic higher education have been engaged for approximately 200 years.” The Faith and Theologies, in The Teaching Church in Our Time, Daughters of St Paul, 1978, p 34].

Great quotes - thanks for sharing.

 

[JamesTheJust]

R_C, you have a good point. The catechesis that some Catholics have received is astonishingly awful. I have encountered some supposedly catechized Catholics who were unaware of such base doctrines such as the Four Marian Dogmas, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and even the Infallibility and Indefectibility of the Church!

 

[johnnyc176]

R_C, you have a good point. The catechesis that some Catholics have received is astonishingly awful. I have encountered some supposedly catechized Catholics who were unaware of such base doctrines such as the Four Marian Dogmas, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and even the Infallibility and Indefectibility of the Church!

All in the name of ecumenism.