Someone, read this, is this just some big joke?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JFonseka
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The validity of the Sacrament of Holy Orders is not a sedevacanist proposal only. It has been brought up and discussed in other venues. Why would Vatican II promulgate changes in the sacraments? If you want a good conspiracy theory, it’s because those in power are of the Lavender Mafia and want to destroy the church. With all the controversy that came out of Vatican II and the mess we are in doesn’t it surprise anyone that another council was not called to correct things?
Do you have any idea how expensive an ecumenical council is? It took to church decades to recover from the costs of Vatican II.
 
The validity of the Sacrament of Holy Orders is not a sedevacanist proposal only. It has been brought up and discussed in other venues. Why would Vatican II promulgate changes in the sacraments? If you want a good conspiracy theory, it’s because those in power are of the Lavender Mafia and want to destroy the church. With all the controversy that came out of Vatican II and the mess we are in doesn’t it surprise anyone that another council was not called to correct things?
If you would read a history of the sacraments, you would see that Vatican 2 was looking back to the early church as it looked at how the sacraments were done. All of the conspiracey theories are spun by those who have no real understanding of what sacramental theology was about. Too often, their view of the sacraments becomes omething that borders on a magical formula that somehow entraps God, forces Him to our will, rather than understanding that the sacraments are a meeting between God and man, a means of His graces flowing to us. It is entirely possible for a sacrament, over time, to become to entrenched in a formulaic response that does too much to hide the reality of the sacrament and too little to further the contact of man to God.

As to another Council being called, yes, it would be unusual, as again a history of the Church would show that after Councils there have been a period of upheaval and turmoil. We have averaged a Council once about every 80 to 90 years or so.
 
I thought anybody (man) could becaome a Pope. Why do they even make a big deal out him not being a bishop? Monks have been pope. Heck I thought even a layman can become pope.
 
Not to lend any credence to the sedevacantist position
I thought anybody (man) could becaome a Pope. Why do they even make a big deal out him not being a bishop? Monks have been pope. Heck I thought even a layman can become pope.
While it is true* that any man may be elected in the conclave, the pope is (by definition) the Bishop of Rome. Should the man chosen not be already a bishop, he must be so ordained before he can assume the office of the papcy.

(* Or at least it has been true – I’m not sure what current rules are)

tee
 
Sounds exactly like our parish’s Novus Ordo Mass!! 😃
(Re: Scott_Lafrance:
The want to go back to the Tridentine Mass, where all women had to wear head covers, the Mass was entirely in Latin, and communion was dispensed only on the tongue, in a kneeling position, at the rail around the altar. )
That is nonsensical jargon:whacky: . If your statement were true than the masses are the same, and we know that they are not, and in that case we would not have the need of the Novus Ordo Mass.😉
 
If you would read a history of the sacraments, you would see that Vatican 2 was looking back to the early church as it looked at how the sacraments were done. All of the conspiracey theories are spun by those who have no real understanding of what sacramental theology was about. Too often, their view of the sacraments becomes omething that borders on a magical formula that somehow entraps God, forces Him to our will, rather than understanding that the sacraments are a meeting between God and man, a means of His graces flowing to us. It is entirely possible for a sacrament, over time, to become to entrenched in a formulaic response that does too much to hide the reality of the sacrament and too little to further the contact of man to God.

As to another Council being called, yes, it would be unusual, as again a history of the Church would show that after Councils there have been a period of upheaval and turmoil. We have averaged a Council once about every 80 to 90 years or so.
We really don’t need undo Vatican II. What we need to do is undo all those things done allegedly in a spirit of Vatican II. Whenever someone talks about something being in the* spirit* of Vatican II one note 2 things. One they have not read the documents issued by Vatican II and two they are about to suggest some radical change.
 
**Sedevacantism is a Latin word that means “the chair is empty” and is ment to imply, by certain hardcore pre-Vatican II Catholics that with the acceptance of the pastoral reforms of Vatican II, the papacy nullified itself and the the Chair of Peter will remain vacant until a successor is chosen that revokes Vatican II. Its a preposerous and silly notion the puts the “true Catholic faith” into the hands of a few misguided, but zealous followers of the old Latin-only faith.

The want to go back to the Tridentine Mass, where all women had to wear head covers, the Mass was entirely in Latin, and communion was dispensed only on the tongue, in a kneeling position, at the rail around the altar.**

Also, the seeming refusal of Church authorities to discipline heretical theologians, and allowing them to keep teaching at Catholic Universities, etc., reinforces the sedevacantists belief that the post-Vatican II church has “abandoned the faith.”

While I am certainly not a sedevacantist by any means,
sometimes church leaders also make statements these days that are very disturbing. For example, pre-Vatican 2, it was commonly accepted and taught that the pagan religions and Islam were religions of the Devil. I happen to agree with that, as these religions, as Doctrinal-Systems, lead their followers AWAY from Christ, not TOWARD Him.
Well, and I’m sure he didn’t mean it as radical as it sounded, my local bishop recently stated that all the world’s other religions have their origin, to some degree, in God.
I don’t agree with that at all.
I don’t believe God had anything to do, for example, with Joseph Smith founding the Mormon church.
I don’t believe that God had anything to do with the people of India worshiping Idols, their Hindu gods and goddesses.
I don’t believe that God had anything at all to do with Mohammad writing in the Koran that the Trinity doctrine is False.

A person inclined toward sedevacantism, and already distrustful of the Church, would jump all over my bishop’s unfortunate remark and assume that the man is completely apostate from the Catholic faith, which he is not.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
 
I can understand your bishop saying that in that Catholics, (even Bishops) really don’t understand how evil, evil can be.

Now we should all look at people with charity, yet there is quite evil people out there willing to mix good with bad to mislead people. Never underestimate how clever evil can be in misleading people, sometimes just slightly to change attitudes, theology and sometimes just destroy people’s faith.

All too often Catholics will attribute good will, when there is none and sometimes even say silly things like “all religions come from God”. We don’t need to insult others but we don’t need to pamper them so much that we legitimize them.

God Bless
Scylla
 
Do you have any idea how expensive an ecumenical council is? It took to church decades to recover from the costs of Vatican II.
Expensive eh? Lets see hummm…Marble and beautifully carved works of art gone. Beautiful statues gone…remodeling expenses, pedophile payments over 1 billion… loss of Catholic members and their support gone… I’m sure there is more… yeah Vatican II was expensive and it wouldn’t have lasted 4 years if it had not been hijacked by the Liberals like Bugghinni… Ratzinger et al. “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber” is a good read on the subject.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top