J
japhy
Guest
(Bump)
SSPX: Bishop Fellay says SSPX canno accept all of Vatican II reforms.
- Status
M
Matt33
Guest
Society CONSTANTLY changes it always has never once has it been stable since the Garden of Eden. Our Church went through probably its most radical change ever, this was because of a council. Why was the council implemented? Has it achieved those goals? How is it being used today? Blame society all you want, the Church has been steady through many radical society. Yet now one can say we have changed coarse. OF COURSE IT IS BECAUSE OF VII!!! There is much good in the modern Church but why are some soooo defensive toward the cause of some problems and with VII You don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater I get that but geese for the love of pete change the freaking bathwater, dont just tell me it isn’t dirty or that you don’t know why it is dirty after you put a dirty baby in it. “Gosh there are many reasons the water could be dirty… I can;'t accept it is because I put a dirty baby in it.” Duh!
Seriously… let it go brother. You whine about calling names but you can’t wait to egg on and get your jabs in… Arent we better than this?
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Yes, society is constantly changing but there were great societal changes at the same time as Vatican II, more so than at any other time.
Yes I can, when you start to call your compatriots on the carpet for the name calling as much as you are pointing out what you perceive as my faults.
M
malphono
Guest
I more-or-less agree, but will offer a comment: it seems to me the societal changes in the '60s were an organic development, whereas the post-conciliar developments in the Church were not. What the “spirit of Vatican II” people did was, IMO, use the Council to further their own agenda of conforming the Church to society. The “old” was out, the "new was in. In other words, the hermeneutic of rupture. Personally I see that as a very grave error.
It always fascinates me that many of the “flower children” of the '60s ended up being social neo-conservatives, which I think shows that the societal changes were organic. When the dust settled, they began to think for themselves, rather than have their thinking done for them by the gurus.
Not quite the same in the Church, is it? Those “flower children of the '60” in the Church are mostly still that, even if some have morphed in other ways.
The “spirit of Vatican II” clergy, i.e. those who jumped on the “spirit of Vatican II” bandwagon before it even left the station, are still on the same bandwagon, lost in a time warp. Looking at the clergy offering the EF, from what I see they are either those who were close to retirement age in the '60s, or (and this is most encouraging) were born and raised in the age of the OF. Rare to find one “in the middle” offering the EF: most of them are the ones stuck in the time-warp.
It’s similar for religious sisters. Similar, too, for the laity in great part. Those I see at the EF are mainly either “old timers” (in full adulthood in 1964) or (and I find this very encouraging) those born and raised during the near exclusivity of the OF. Those who grew up in those post-conciliar years are fewer (yet are, perhaps, the most vociferous
).IMO, those in the “time warp” are (and were) the biggest problem. Those are the ones who ran amok with their own interpretation of the Council, taking the faithful right down the same road with them. And that includes (first and foremost) those in power in Rome at the time. The very idea of “continuity” was (and is) anathema to them. Hopefully it can all be undone, and the continuity restored to its rightful place, but it may take a while.
M
maurin
Guest
then why are you responding to me via a third person?
seeing that your propensity for acting as a child and throwing out names was already well established in your posts prior to our dialogue, I don’t see how you can possibly try to take the moral high road.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Please point to any name calling I did prior to your calling me a liberal and I will fully apologize for the act.
M
maurin
Guest
at least you’re not speaking to me through anyone… like I said, your propensities were already firmly established before our dialogue…one only need click on your userid and click again on “find all posts by…”
Now, if you’re willing, Brother David, O. Carm, to continue future dialogue in a pleasant and respectful manner, I will consider it a privilege to apologize to you for having offended you.
M
Matt33
Guest
I fail to grasp this logic. there were greater societal changes in the 60s than AT ANY OTHER TIME? you cannot be serious, greater than the invention of democracy, greater than the age of discovery, the renessiance, fall of the roman empire… civil wars, world wars one and especially two. The rise and fall of communism, the great depression. You see my friend it just doesn’t make sense, but I am sure it fits your world view.
Incedentally I have no "compatriots, I never called you ANY name and you have done nothing but attack and whine. From “I’m not talking to you” to taking offence to anyone or anything. THen you dare call others Childish. They may be Childish too but your fault is glaring.
P
ProVobis
Guest
After having read the book “The Rhine Runs Into the Tiber” I wondered indeed if the whole council had been was hijacked by a few and the dying Pope John wanted to put a halt to it as it deviated completely from his reasons for having called it. But we will never know for sure.
L
LilyM
Guest
I would agree, the 60s weren’t really the time of the biggest ever societal changes.
However, neither is the ‘Spirit of Vatican 2’ the biggest calamity ever to overtake the Church either - not when compared to the Arian heresy, the Orthodox/Catholic split, the Great Western Schism or the mass desertions from the Catholic faith that was the Reformation.
P
Paul_Folbrecht
Guest
A number of respected Catholic authors have indeed likened the current crisis in the Church to that of the Arian heresy.
Surely they are at least in the same league.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Classic logic says that you can not look at any single event in the past and say that it is the cause of something that follows it. I am sorry but I fail to see the logic in your claims.
I have not attacked, I have just disagreed with you. If you see that as an attack then I am sorry for that but I will not change my opinion just as I know you will not change yours.
As Maurin and I have seemed to come to an understanding I will leave it at that.
M
Matt33
Guest
I could probably agree with this but I do think it does have the potential to reach that calamity. However I have faith and hope that it will bring about good fruit. As far as movements go it is still a baby.
M
Matt33
Guest
Where do you get your ideas about what “classic logic” says? What is your definition of this and how it is contrary? You may be very bright or you may be acting elitist or you may be just misinformed. Like being misinformed on my posistion being that VII is the ONLY cause. I never said, or implied that. If you fail to see the simple logic in simple claims that I have made, then we are not like minded which is fine.
You are right you did not attack, but you did whine and you did pout. Then you accused others of being Childish, cmon… you know better than that. Good to know you and maurin have had a Valentines day make up. Now the rest of the playground can sleep tonight.
A
Aramis
Guest
The Council itself called for several things in the liturgy:
- Increased use of old testament readings
- permission and rubrics for concelebration in the roman rite
- permission to use the vernacular for some of the liturgy
- more active participation by the laity
It didn’t call for turning the priest around, saying the whole liturgy in the vernacular, nor for an increase in lay ministers.
The 12 year cycle of readings (due to overlapping 3 and 4 year reading cycles) is a novel, but worthy solution, resulting in far more use of the old testament in the liturgy, and far more of the bible in use.
Y
Yours_Truly
Guest
Yours Truly:
Japhy:
**Pope Leo XIII: **“This unity cannot be broken nor the one body divided by the separation of its constituent parts. … 'The Church [says St. Cyprian who he is quoting] cannot be divided into parts by the separation and cutting asinder of its members. What is cut away from the mother cannot life or breathe apart” (Satis Cognitum).
The encyclical I just quoted from is long, but very good. It deals with the unity of the Church. As the Pope explains, we are not to ask how the Church might possibly be one, but how He who founded it willed that it should be one:
Pope Leo XIII: “[T]he Church of Jesus Christ is one, and no Christian can deny it. But in judging and determining the nature of this unity many have erred in various ways. … For this reason the entire case must be judged by what was actually done. We must consequently investigate not how the Church may possibly be one, but how He who founded it willed that it should be one” (ibid.).
The Church is one through both faith and government. Heretics are separated from the faith, and schismatics from the government, since they reject the office of the Pope.
Now, we’ve discussed the exception of one who might be a visible member of a sect, but who is united to the soul of the Catholic Church. This exception is possible only if they have not fallen into heresy, or rejected the office of the Pope. Once the individual does this, he cannot be united to the soul of the Church, since a rejection of the body will cut him off from the soul.
But such an exception cannot be made for the heretical sect, or schismatic group as such. Why? Because they are objective, and do not allow for a subjective exception. What I mean is, these groups are separated from the Catholic Church for a reason - either they deny certain dogmas or they deny the office of the Pope. They are false sects as such (because of what they teach), and the sect as such cannot be excused through any ignorance, as can an individual member.
These groups have certain teachings that are false. Since it is the teaching of the group as such that is false, there is no way to say that the false group is united to the Church through some kind of “invincible ignorance”. Maybe a member can be, but that is only because they are not adhereing to what the false sect teaches.
Pope Leo XIII: Jesus Christ did not… institute a Churh to embrace several communities similar in nature, but in themselves distinct".
Remember, the Church of Jesus Christ is one, and the unity cannot be broken apart. When a group separates itself from the unity, it only affects the group that left. The unity of the One True Church remains perfectly intact. The perfectly united Church just becomes smaller. Any group, such as the Orthodox, who reject the Pope as the head of the Church, which they do, are not part of the Church of Jesus Christ. Having been cut away, they have become a false Church, even if they retain some of the teachings and sacraments of the One True Church of which they are not a part. All heresies have maintained some of the teachings and most have retained the sacraments, but this does not mean they remain part of the Church. It just means that, when they left the Church, they took with them certain “elements” that do not belong to them. The reason “elements of the one Church” exist outside the Church is because they were stolen when these groups separated from the Church.
**Pope Leo XIII: **"The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos). (ibid’)
continue…
Simply put, the heretical and schismatic sects are not in any way united to the Catholic Church because they are separated from it. The Church of Christ has a perfect unity, which cannot be broken apart, as Pope Leo XIII said:
**Pope Leo XIII: **“This unity cannot be broken nor the one body divided by the separation of its constituent parts. … 'The Church [says St. Cyprian who he is quoting] cannot be divided into parts by the separation and cutting asinder of its members. What is cut away from the mother cannot life or breathe apart” (Satis Cognitum).
The encyclical I just quoted from is long, but very good. It deals with the unity of the Church. As the Pope explains, we are not to ask how the Church might possibly be one, but how He who founded it willed that it should be one:
Pope Leo XIII: “[T]he Church of Jesus Christ is one, and no Christian can deny it. But in judging and determining the nature of this unity many have erred in various ways. … For this reason the entire case must be judged by what was actually done. We must consequently investigate not how the Church may possibly be one, but how He who founded it willed that it should be one” (ibid.).
The Church is one through both faith and government. Heretics are separated from the faith, and schismatics from the government, since they reject the office of the Pope.
Now, we’ve discussed the exception of one who might be a visible member of a sect, but who is united to the soul of the Catholic Church. This exception is possible only if they have not fallen into heresy, or rejected the office of the Pope. Once the individual does this, he cannot be united to the soul of the Church, since a rejection of the body will cut him off from the soul.
But such an exception cannot be made for the heretical sect, or schismatic group as such. Why? Because they are objective, and do not allow for a subjective exception. What I mean is, these groups are separated from the Catholic Church for a reason - either they deny certain dogmas or they deny the office of the Pope. They are false sects as such (because of what they teach), and the sect as such cannot be excused through any ignorance, as can an individual member.
These groups have certain teachings that are false. Since it is the teaching of the group as such that is false, there is no way to say that the false group is united to the Church through some kind of “invincible ignorance”. Maybe a member can be, but that is only because they are not adhereing to what the false sect teaches.
Pope Leo XIII: Jesus Christ did not… institute a Churh to embrace several communities similar in nature, but in themselves distinct".
Remember, the Church of Jesus Christ is one, and the unity cannot be broken apart. When a group separates itself from the unity, it only affects the group that left. The unity of the One True Church remains perfectly intact. The perfectly united Church just becomes smaller. Any group, such as the Orthodox, who reject the Pope as the head of the Church, which they do, are not part of the Church of Jesus Christ. Having been cut away, they have become a false Church, even if they retain some of the teachings and sacraments of the One True Church of which they are not a part. All heresies have maintained some of the teachings and most have retained the sacraments, but this does not mean they remain part of the Church. It just means that, when they left the Church, they took with them certain “elements” that do not belong to them. The reason “elements of the one Church” exist outside the Church is because they were stolen when these groups separated from the Church.
**Pope Leo XIII: **"The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos). (ibid’)
continue…
Y
Yours_Truly
Guest
continuation
Here’s a quote from the Catechism of Pius X on the unity of the Church.
I can understand why you might be a little confused since their is a “new ecclesiology” that has emerged, which has made what was very clear, a little ambiguous. This new ecclesiology pretends that the one True Church is a larger identity that the Catholic Church. It implies that the separate groups are only separated by a degree - that there is a “full communion”, and a “partial communion”.
According to this “new ecclesiology” (which is contrary to what the Church has always taught) the Arian, the Pelagians, the Novitians, and all other heresies would be in “partial communion” with the Catholic Church since we all share a “common baptism”. This is pure non-sense. A common baptism does not unite heretical sects with the Catholic Church - even if it is possible that an individual member (such as a baby) can be united to the soul of the Church in spite of the fact that they were baptized by a heretical sect.
So in conclusion, the Church is one. Those groups who are not part of the Church are not part of the Church in any way because they are separated from it. Being separated from it, they are separated from it completely. The Church is not something larger than the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is it, and those who are separated from it are separated from the Church.
I don’t know if that answers you questions or not. If not, let me know what specific questions come to your mind and I’ll try to answer them.
Here’s a quote from the Catechism of Pius X on the unity of the Church.
That is very clear: Those who do not acknowlege the Pope as the head of the Church do not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ. That clearly applies to all heretical and schismatic groups, such as the Protestants and Orthodox
I can understand why you might be a little confused since their is a “new ecclesiology” that has emerged, which has made what was very clear, a little ambiguous. This new ecclesiology pretends that the one True Church is a larger identity that the Catholic Church. It implies that the separate groups are only separated by a degree - that there is a “full communion”, and a “partial communion”.
According to this “new ecclesiology” (which is contrary to what the Church has always taught) the Arian, the Pelagians, the Novitians, and all other heresies would be in “partial communion” with the Catholic Church since we all share a “common baptism”. This is pure non-sense. A common baptism does not unite heretical sects with the Catholic Church - even if it is possible that an individual member (such as a baby) can be united to the soul of the Church in spite of the fact that they were baptized by a heretical sect.
So in conclusion, the Church is one. Those groups who are not part of the Church are not part of the Church in any way because they are separated from it. Being separated from it, they are separated from it completely. The Church is not something larger than the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is it, and those who are separated from it are separated from the Church.
I don’t know if that answers you questions or not. If not, let me know what specific questions come to your mind and I’ll try to answer them.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I just saw copies of the St. James Bible selling for $5 at CVS Pharmacy. At this price you should have a ton more bibles in use.
M
Melvin
Guest
Question: How would Pope Pius XII have viewed the Eastern Catholic Churches? Technically, they are not Roman Catholic…
This is a sincere question, by the way. I am very concerned about the condition of the Church. I belong to a Novus Ordo parish, but I often attend a UGCC parish and am now seriously considering attending a TLM parish. BTW, I became a Catholic because I believe that the Catholic Church is the “True Church.” If I did not believe that, I would not have bothered…
So, did Pius XII view the Eastern Catholic Churches as outside the Church? Did he view them as “subsets” of the Roman Catholic Church?..
Thanks…
Y
Yours_Truly
Guest
The Eastern Rites of the Church are part of the Catholic Church. There are many different Rites, all of which are part of the Church.
Also, the term “Roman Catholic Church” does not only mean the Church of Rome, but also those Churches which are in union with Rome - even if they are Eastern Rites.
The Eastern churches that aren’t part of the Church are the ones that separated from the Catholic Church. These are now known as the “Orthodox”. Pius XII would have considered them to be heretical and schismatic, which is what they are.
- Status