The Perfect Balance

[Friend_Of_Rome]

If i were to be politically labelled, I would be branded a Traditionalist. However, we can’t let our allegiences go too far either way! Yes, the TLM is superb-it brings a high sense of dignity, it focuses us on the Mass itself, not the priest celebrating it, etc. . . But, Vatican II was definately needed. Newer Catholics are less willing to learn the things that truly make them Catholic. Many don’t know a speck of Latin, not even the Agnus Dei or the Kyrie. That’s no matter, we must learn to educate our brothers and sisters in faith. We also need to find a perfect balance between the old and the new. Remeber, the SSPX was excommunicated for being too right-wing. Embrace vatican II, but also embrace the rich Tradition and ways of the Catholic Church.

In Faith,
David

 

[Triumpha]

But, Vatican II was definately needed.

Why?

Newer Catholics are less willing to learn the things that truly make them Catholic.

So, why was Vatican II definitely needed?

Many don’t know a speck of Latin, not even the Agnus Dei or the Kyrie.

Kyrie is Greek!

Anyhow, why was Vatican II definitely needed?

Remeber, the SSPX was excommunicated for being too right-wing.

No it wasn’t! The “excommunication” was to do with disobedience. Nothing to do with being too “right wing”!

Embrace vatican II,

But why?!

Triumpha.

 

[steve_green_2]

I would tend to disagree with you a bit. The PX bishops consecrated by HG Arch. Lef. and himself were excommunicated not the society or lay members sitting in the pews.

VII happened, it’s over, but the hangover of confusion lasts-possibly forever. We have a new rite of mass that hasn’t worked too darn well all things considered.

The TLM is timeless ( kindof like the Beatles, and steak and lobster)

I just wish the new rite would have been more like a vernacular eastern liturgy instead of some choppy, quasi protestant, hybrid of something I still can’t figure out.

We are Catholics through thick and thin. I already like the new pontiff pretty well. Pray for the young people to at least appreciate and see what awesome liturgy looks like (TLM and Divine Liturgy)

 

[Friend_Of_Rome]

Sorry for the errors in the previous posting of mine. I was half awake. I know the Kyrie is greek . . . If you look, I wasn’t modifying the Latin with the Kyrie and the Agnus Dei. I simply meant that most Catholics stick to only one language.

We must adhere to Vatican II because IT WAS A CHURCH COUNCIL. If you are of this mentality, why not reject Trent or Ephesus? [SIGN]It sounds like Triumpha has an axe to grind, so please all, shield your eyes from these sparks of discontentment.[/SIGN]
If we don’t embrace our heritage, we cannot hope to understand the current church. Doctrine is constant, but the defenses for the doctrine are always changing. Vatican II was needed to bring people back into church. Enrolement has gone up! It was best for the church to have this council.

 

[Triumpha]

We must adhere to Vatican II because IT WAS A CHURCH COUNCIL. If you are of this mentality, why not reject Trent or Ephesus?

Vatican II defined nothing new. In that respect I accept it. It favours novelties. It was the protection of the Holy Ghost, IMHO, that prevented V2 defining those novelties!

Vatican II was needed to bring people back into church. Enrolement has gone up! It was best for the church to have this council.

Well, the Church hasn’t brought people back in, but has rather lost a considerable number, since Vatican 2!

I have many axes to grind!

Triumpha.

 

[AquinaSavio]

If we don’t embrace our heritage, we cannot hope to understand the current church. Doctrine is constant, but the defenses for the doctrine are always changing. Vatican II was needed to bring people back into church. Enrolement has gone up! It was best for the church to have this council.

Perhaps many people have joined the Church since Vatican II. However, the Church has still suffered. Too many Catholics believe in contraception, homosexual “marriages,” and even doubt the true presence in the Holy Eucharist. Not to say that this is all Vatican II’s fault, but it did contribute to the problem. I don’t think it’s better to have 1,000,000 Catholics who deny Church doctrine than to have a smaller number who remain loyal to the Church and her head.

Vatican II was called during a time in America’s history that people were revolting against the moral code. I think that changing the Mass to the NO almost gave people the idea that they had a right to rebel against the Church, and that it would bring results. People may have been tired of the TLM, but that is not the Church’s problem. That is the same as saying that they’re tired of worshipping God as the saints down through the ages had worshipped Him. The Church is timeless, and I don’t think it needed change. Vatican II can’t possibly be blamed for the problems in the Church. However, I do believe that it contributed.

 

[Friend_Of_Rome]

I completely agree. I often say to friends that Vatican II, though stating the true stand of the church, seemed to be a little weakening. Vatican II, for Americans, removed the moral thermometer. No longer did people clearly know what was right, what was wrong. That’s why i said a balance, following Vatican II to the letter, and being completely loyal to Rome.

Popular opinion changed teh true message of vatican II. For all of those poeple emailing me saying that what i typed is wrong, read the documents, teh encyclicals first. I’m virtually quoting the USCCB and the popes from John XXIII on.