The Cautionary End of the Spirit of Vatican II

  • Thread starter Thread starter universalindult
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
universalindult said:
Definitely worth reading!

Dr. Mirus’ essay is in response to this truly pathetic piece at Commonweal:
Click to expand...
I read the Commonweal piece. One could write an essay on every other sentence. Here’s one quote:

“In other words, large social, cultural, and economic forces-and not simply internal forces such as the alleged dilution of Catholicism by Vatican II reforms-have contributed to Catholicism’s decline.”

“Alleged” dilution?! You mean the watering down of the faith in the liturgy and catechesis (which go hand in hand) and the stripping of the altars was just a figment of my imagination?! Thank God!

While certainly there have been cultural forces at work, what we as Catholics need to do is acknowledge how much we have shot ourselves in the foot,–nay, emptied a clip into it, after Vatican II. There is an answer to many of these issues, and it’s not unknowable, as the above article alleges. A return to tradition, as that incarnates the Catholic faith and will attract disciples.
 
Wow, quite an article.

The other article, in Commonweal though, wow, I wonder who really inspired that?
 
As misguided as that article in Commonweal might be, he had a few good points, whether he intended them or not.

"Loosening restrictions’ and compromising doctrine will do harm, not good. Simply because it would be changing truth into lies in most cases.

Also blaming VCII and ‘bumbling bishops’ won’t do any good either. While several reforms in the wake of VCII that were supposedly in ‘the spirit of the council’ which had nothing to do with the sort, and the mistakes make by leadership did do damage, the faithful also had some responsibility.

The defeatist spirit of the Milwaukee priest does even less good. Band-Aid programs might not do good but a truly felt renewed fervor will. If we see it in the priests and the bishops, if we show the same to our kids who are the future priests and bishops, we can bring back, what I consider, the real spirit of VCII: Catholicism is not some relic of a bygone era, it is the true and living Church on Earth and will bring the Truth of Christ to each and every century mankind sees.
 
universalindult said:
Dr. Mirus’ essay is in response to this truly pathetic piece at Commonweal:
Click to expand...
I thought the commonweal piece was spot on. It’s about time someone starts looking at the decline honestly. Thank you for pointing that out.
 
JMMK said:
As misguided as that article in Commonweal might be, he had a few good points, whether he intended them or not.

"Loosening restrictions’ and compromising doctrine will do harm, not good. Simply because it would be changing truth into lies in most cases.
Click to expand...
I think rather it changed truth and certainties into matters of opinion.

This was what happened at Vatican II … the faith as a law of belief … as a rule to which one submits one’s intellect - was dissolved. In its place was put a set of opinions. Many of those opinions coincided with traditional Catholic beliefs, but they only had the status of opinions now.
That is what it means to dismantle the Index of Forbidden Books, and to “reform” the Holy Office so that it would no longer condemn error, but rather “encourage doctrinal initiative.” You cannot have institutions defending a fixed rule which doesn’t exist.
The institutions have to change to reflect the new reality - a “church” in which the doctrines are a set of opinions. Ancient, venerable, lovely, opinions, but opinions all the same. This was the corrosive spirit that was unleashed. The reaction of the orthodox-minded men who remained in that structure was, at best, as you describe - “Oh, I believe it, but how can we prove it?” That is where the Faith went. This what many of us do right here on this forum…we have to prove formerly certain doctrines to those who say, “Well, that’s your opinion”.

Here is what Archbishop Lefebvre described only one year after the Council closed, “In a more or less general way, when the Council has introduced innovations, it has unsettled the certainty of truths taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Church as unquestionably belonging to the treasure of Tradition.” And, “In fact, Rome is no longer the unique and necessary Magistra Veritatis [Teacher of Truth].”
40.png
JMMK:
Also blaming VCII and ‘bumbling bishops’ won’t do any good either. While several reforms in the wake of VCII that were supposedly in ‘the spirit of the council’ which had nothing to do with the sort, and the mistakes make by leadership did do damage, the faithful also had some responsibility.
Click to expand...
Who’s to blame then? They are the “Teaching Church” who we are instructed to follow. Remember that the proximate or normal rule of Faith for a Catholic is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium!
Mons. G. Van Noort S.T.D.:
The proximate rule of faith, from which the faithful, one and all, are bound to accept their faith and in accordance with which they are to regulate it, is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium.(27) The following assertions concern the proximate rule of faith.
  1. The Church’s preaching was established by Christ Himself as the rule of faith. This can be proved from Matthew 28:19—20 and Mark 16:15—16; the command to teach all nations certainly implies a corresponding duty on the part of the nations to believe whatever the apostles and their successors teach, On the other hand, there is no notice anywhere of Christ’s having commanded the apostles to give the people the doctrine of salvation in writing, and never did He command the faithful as a whole to seek their faith in the Bible.(28)
  2. The Church’s preaching is a rule of faith which is nicely accommodated to people’s needs. For (a) it is an easy rule, one that can be observed by all alike, even the uneducated and unlettered. What could be easier than to give ear to a magisterium that is always at hand and always preaching? (b) It is a safe rule, for the Church’s teaching office is infallible in safeguarding and presenting Christ’s doctrine. (c) It is a living rule, in accordance with which it is possible in any age to explain the meaning of doctrines and to put an end to controversies.
Click to expand...
SFD
 
SFD said:
Who’s to blame then?
Click to expand...
Everyone shares some of the blame. Priests and Bishops are not some higher caste or nobility. They come from amongst us to serve and teach us. So if a generation lets secular forces shape it more than religious, what kind of priests would come from that generation? Parents, family and friends shaped the priests we have today just as much as any church document or council. And when bad/lazy/inaccurate priests arise, which they have through out history, it is now easier than ever to look to writings both old and new to validate or invalidate what said priest taught. Their teaching might be the normal rule of faith but it is not the only rule of faith.

I’m not going to defend VCII in this thread, there are sufficient threads out there for that. It has been misinterperated in both directions by people who want to advance a certain agenda. But sitting there and pointing at one factor or one document and saying “See! See! That’s the problem!” is down right foolish.
 
40.png
JMMK:
Everyone shares some of the blame.
Click to expand...
While this may be true…it explains nothing. It’s just a way to say we can’t blame anyone.
40.png
JMMK:
Priests and Bishops are not some higher caste or nobility.
Click to expand...
They are raised to a greater dignity because of the fact of their orders and in the case of Bishops, their jurisdiction. They are the ecclesiastical magisterium…the “teaching Church”.
40.png
JMMK:
They come from amongst us to serve and teach us. So if a generation lets secular forces shape it more than religious, what kind of priests would come from that generation?
Click to expand...
They are formed by the seminaries, the institutions set up by the authority of the ecclesiastical magisterium.
40.png
JMMK:
Parents, family and friends shaped the priests we have today just as much as any church document or council.
Click to expand...
No, as I said above, the institutions set up by the authority of the ecclesiastical magisterium are responsible for the formation of priests.
40.png
JMMK:
And when bad/lazy/inaccurate priests arise, which they have through out history, it is now easier than ever to look to writings both old and new to validate or invalidate what said priest taught.
Click to expand...
But you are not really looking at the remote rule to determine this…what you are suggesting we do (and rightly so) is to look at what was written down concerning the constant preaching of the Church. We should not need to do this unless the ecclesiastical magisterium is somehow corrupted.
Mons. G. Van Noort:
  1. The assistance promised the Church’s rulers extends to the threefold function which they must fulfill with regard to religious truth. (a) They are infallible witnesses of revelation, in that they always reverently safeguard the deposit entrusted to the Church; (b) they are infallible teachers of religious truth, in that they always faithfully interpret and explain revealed doctrine; (c) they are infallible arbiters of controversies, in that they always decide without error questions which have arisen on matters of religion.
Sequel

The rule of faith. It seems timely to add here a few remarks on the rule of faith. This term signifies the standard or norm according to which each individual Christian must determine what is the material object of his faith.

Protestants claim that the written Word of God, Holy Scripture, and that alone, is the one rule of faith. Catholics, on the other hand, even though they, too, admit that our faith must be regulated in the final analysis by the Word of God — including tradition as well as Scripture — hold that the proximate and immediate rule of faith — that rule to which each of the faithful and each generation of the faithful must look directly — is the preaching of the Church. And so, according to Catholics, there exists a twofold rule of faith: one remote and one proximate. The remote rule of faith is the Word of God (handed down in writing or orally), which was directly entrusted to the Church’s rulers that from it they might teach and guide the faithful. The proximate rule of faith, from which the faithful, one and all, are bound to accept their faith and in accordance with which they are to regulate it, is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium.(27)
Click to expand...
40.png
JMMK:
Their teaching might be the normal rule of faith but it is not the only rule of faith.
Click to expand...
The Protestants have the remote rule of faith…as Catholics do. What the protestants do not have is the preaching of the Church.
40.png
JMMK:
I’m not going to defend VCII in this thread, there are sufficient threads out there for that. It has been misinterperated in both directions by people who want to advance a certain agenda. But sitting there and pointing at one factor or one document and saying “See! See! That’s the problem!” is down right foolish.
Click to expand...
And I’m not doing that at all. The proximate rule of Faith IS THE PREACHING OF THE LIVING ECCLESIASTICAL MAGISTERIUM. It’s not that they “didn’t implement Vatican II correctly”…it that they no longer are preaching what was certain PRIOR TO Vatican II.

If one holds that Vatican II is not being implemented in accordance with the constant teachings of the Church…then the real problem is that the constant teachings of the Church are no longer considered binding or even necessary.

SFD
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top