Traditional Orthodox and traditional Catholics

[Marybeloved]

Actually Vatican II was even good for the Eastern Catholics because it allowed the bearers of the Eastern Rites to go back to what their traditional practices are, rather than being forced “Latinizations” to make the Liturgies resemble the Mass more. But still that hasn’t changed the trend. Even in the homelands of the Eastern Churches, secularism and Protestantization is on the rise.

Agreed. Vatican II did actually bring many positive things, besides the sad events brought about by it’s 1960’s to 80’s hijackers. For me, the absolute most positive one was the foundations it set for Christendom to take its first real steps towards Christian unity. The church had actually become so traditional, in the sense that customs were taken as dogma. There are people who almost believe it a grave sin to not use certain language, like Latin in liturgical ceremonies! Yes, we may have been nicely set in our various traditions, but we were all so rigid, like pharisees and many times could not even see each other as Christians! Perhaps this millennium is the age for christian restoration, just as the last saw it’s splintering. If that is the case, if we ever, by a miracle, perhaps by our lady, we come together as one, it will no doubt be traced to this council that has been so bastardized. If that happens, it will be praised as one of the most important councils in church history. I always wonder about Christians who don’t groan for christian unity- It was our lord’s last prayer, his ‘will’ if you will, the thing he wanted most for his followers. Let’s all pray that in this decade, century or millennium, all those baptized in the name of the blessed Trinity, believers and lovers of Jesus Christ will be visibly one. If that happens, the world better watch out!

 

[TrentCath]

What made it flourish? How about the fact that England has colonized or influenced a great part of the world from the time of the Age of Exploration until the last century? And that they weren’t Catholics? America was never a Catholic-majority country to begin with, many liberal ideas came from Protestants who were the majority. In the Philippines where I grew up which is predominantly Catholic, even there the mark of Protestantism is felt very much. We’ve had TV evangelists since the 70s buying a lot of TV time influencing the catechisis of many people. In fact today, there are more non-Catholic religious programs in the Philippines than Catholic ones.

The core or spirit of the reformation is in one sense or another the root of all the many heresies that pervade the world today, but it is not the doctrines of the Reformation that are shared by the other heresies, it is the disobedience. This disobedience and the sundering of church and state caused in one way or another by the Reformation and the religious conflicts that it led to indirectly casued indifferentism and eventually Modernism.

However it is too simplistic to say ‘its all the reformations fault’, that may well be, but what allowed the undermining of the difference between laity and clergy? What allowed or caused many catholics to become lazy in their devotions and fasting? What encouraged Catholics to meet and even pray with those of other religions and denominations? What definitively sundered the bond between church and state? What made conscience rather than natural or divine law the infallible dictate by which men will be judged? What undermined the Pope’s primacy and rendered him incapable of acting against the innumerable heresies and sects that spread after the council?

The answer to all these questions is undoubtedly the council itself or at the very least all the interpretations that have been made of it. By undermining the uniqueness of the faith, blurring the line between the clergy and laity, relaxing the discipline of the church (something which has had disastrous effects in innumerable ways) and weakening the Popes power the council or the interpretations made of it engendered indifferentism, the loss of faith amongst many catholics and caused many others to be ignorant of their faith. This in turn undermined the churches authority and its ability to witness and proclaim the Gospel message to the world.

The strict canonical discipline imposed by the church and The Popes supreme authority protected catholics from the many heresies and grave errors that surrounded them and when this was loosed not only the laity but many clergy succumbed to them.

In short yes the reformation is partly to blame but it could not have harmed the church if not for Vatican II.

 

[TrentCath]

I have to agree and disagree with both TrentCath and Constantine TG.

But the idea that vatican II is to bear much of the blame, because a church in crisis translates to a society in crisis? No way. The q is why was the church in crisis to begin with? When the church sits and teaches/guides us in some way as in the councils, the response from faithful believers has always been obedience. That’s the point of having leaders in the first place, otherwise we’re all protestants. Disobedience to the magisterium has always lead to schism/heresy and the like, which is crisis- The church will still live on with her groom, ‘even to the end of the age’ and I believe, by a miracle of God we will all one day be one as the lord and his father are one. I think people who complain so much about Vatican II forget that the church has her keeper and her guide, God the Holy Spirit, and that our lord has guaranteed victory for us in the end. Where is trust in all of this?

Besides, the same thing is starting to happen, not just amongst the EO and EC (who, as pointed out earlier, don’t really have Trent and Vatican I & II and others to deal with) but in the islamic world as well, especially, Iran and also in many ways Iraq. Secularism is beginning to make it’s invasion there and one day very soon, it will blow up the cultural foundations of those societies as well, and take much of the religious practice with it. Is that also Vatican II’s fault?

Christ himself tells us repeatedly throughout the Gospels the consequences of Christians forgetting their Vocation, '13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven. ’

Without the church then the world is unsalted, it is in darkness, it knows God not. Being in darkness and not knowing God it falls into the most grave and pernicious errors and becomes mired in them. It is clear then that if the church were ever to fail in its mission (though we know such to be impossible) or to shrink from its duty, the world would fall into darkness and sin. The logic is undeniable, if the church itself the ‘Salt of the Earth’ and ‘Light of the world’ has fallen into crisis how can it be said that the world will not also fall into crisis?

Pope Leo XIII says in his encyclical DALL’ALTO DELL’APOSTOLICO SEGGIO ‘11. *Already the test of the past speaks eloquently for itself.
—*What Italy has become in this first Period of its new life. as to public and private morality, internal safety, order and peace, national wealth and prosperity, all this is known to you by facts, Venerable Brethren, better than We could describe it in words. The very men whose interest it would be to hide all this, are constrained by truth to admit it. We will only say that, under present conditions, though a sad but real necessity, things could not be otherwise: the Masonic sect, with all its boast of a spirit of beneficence and philanthropy, can only exercise an evil influence—an influence which is evil because it attacks and endeavors to destroy the religion of Christ, the true benefactress of mankind.
**
12. All know with what salutary effect and in how many ways the influence of religion penetrates society. It is beyond dispute that sound public and private morality gives honor and strength to States. But it is equally certain that, without religion there is no true morality, either public or private.
—From the family, solidly based on its natural foundations, comes the life, the growth, and the energy of society. But without religion, and without morality, the domestic partnership has no stability, and the family bonds grow weak and waste away.
—The prosperity of peoples and of nations comes from God and from His blessings. If a people does not attribute its prosperity to Him, but rises up against Him, and in the pride of its heart tacitly tells Him that it has no need of Him, its prosperity is but a semblance, certain to disappear so soon as it shall please the Lord to confound the proud insolence of His enemies.
—It is religion which, penetrating to the depth of each one’s conscience, makes him feel the force of duty and urges him to fulfill it. It is religion which gives to rulers feelings of justice and love towards their subjects; which makes subjects faithful and sincerely devoted to their rulers; which makes upright and good legislators, just and incorruptible magistrates, brave and heroic soldiers, conscientious and diligent administrators. It is religion which produces concord and affection between husband and wife, love and reverence between parents and their children; which makes the poor respect the property of others, and causes the rich to make a right use of their wealth. From this fidelity to duty, and this respect for the rights of others come the order, the tranquillity, and the peace, which form so large a part of the prosperity of a people and of a State. Take away religion, and with it all these immensely precious benefits would disappear from society.’

 

[TrentCath]

It is clear then how serious will be the suffering of those nations that listen to the enemies of the church and scorn its teachings, but what happens if that enemy is within the church itself?

Pope St Pius X spoke of the grave consequences of the church militant becoming ‘corrupted’ in his famous encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis '1. One of the primary obligations assigned by Christ to the office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord’s flock is that of guarding with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and the gainsaying of knowledge falsely so called. **T***here has never been a time when this watchfulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body, for owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race, there have never been lacking "men speaking perverse things,"1 "vain talkers and seducers,"2 "erring and driving into error."3 It must, however, be confessed that these latter days have witnessed a notable increase in the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ, who, by arts entirely new and full of deceit, are striving to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, as far as in them lies, utterly to subvert the very Kingdom of Christ. **Wherefore We may no longer keep silence, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be set down to lack of diligence in the discharge of Our office.

**2. That We should act without delay in this matter is made imperative especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, and, what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself…

. For, as We have said, they put into operation their designs for her undoing, not from without but from within. Hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain from the very fact that their knowledge of her is more intimate. Moreover, they lay the ax not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fibers. And once having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to diffuse poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth which they leave untouched, none that they do not strive to corrupt. **.*’

If the enemy is within as Pope St Pius X said then there is no doubt that the churches divine mission to proclaim the Gospel message ‘unto the end of the world’ is compromised and so the world itself is deprived of at least some of the light of the church. It is not completely deprived because Christ said ‘I will be with you even unto the end of the world’ and ‘…You are the rock upon which I shall build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’. But nevertheless we cannot underestimate the grave and terrible consequences of there being enemies of the church within its body, destroying it from within as St Pius X says. At best this will cause mixed messages to be sent out, at worst it will undermine the churches religious and moral authority rendering its witness to the truth much less effective, lessening its influence over the world and causing the loss of millions of souls. Is this not what has happened to the church in the mid 20th and early 21st centuries?

It is clear then that the Magisterium at least implies if not outright teaches that if the church militant becomes infested by heresies the world will soon follow. Even if it did not pure logic would tell us that if an organisation so important to the moral compass of hundreds of millions failed to do so clearly or sent conflicting messages, massive change would follow in the world.

One is then simply left with the question of whether the church has in fact been sending mixed messages or appeared to change its doctrines.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The core or spirit of the reformation is in one sense or another the root of all the many heresies that pervade the world today, but it is not the doctrines of the Reformation that are shared by the other heresies, it is the disobedience. This disobedience and the sundering of church and state caused in one way or another by the Reformation and the religious conflicts that it led to indirectly casued indifferentism and eventually Modernism.

Well the core doctrine of the Reformation is taking authority away from the Church and putting it all on the Bible. This is why heresy is so easy now with no one else but the Bible to look for teaching, any misinterpretation cannot be corrected because one misinterpretation is as good as the next. Basically, by taking the power away from one who holds the keys, its theological anarchy.

However it is too simplistic to say ‘its all the reformations fault’, that may well be, but what allowed the undermining of the difference between laity and clergy? What allowed or caused many catholics to become lazy in their devotions and fasting? What encouraged Catholics to meet and even pray with those of other religions and denominations? What definitively sundered the bond between church and state? What made conscience rather than natural or divine law the infallible dictate by which men will be judged? What undermined the Pope’s primacy and rendered him incapable of acting against the innumerable heresies and sects that spread after the council?

Again, goes back to the Reformation. Since the Pope and the Bishops were left without any authority, whats their use then? If the Bible is the be all, end all to faith then why can’t anyone pick up a Bible and start teaching if that person is inspired by the Holy Spirit, as they claim?

What Protestantized Catholic worship isn’t Vatican II. Even the Orthodox Churches have suffered Protestant influence to some degree. As I said in my previous post, non-Catholic and even non-Orthodox forces are plenty. Their influence is more than we would admit. And truly so, I’ve seen so many Catholic resort to sola scriptura, trying to find verses to prove their beliefs or justify their actions. Where did they get that I suppose? I don’t recall Vatican II ever resorting to sola scriptura.

The answer to all these questions is undoubtedly the council itself or at the very least all the interpretations that have been made of it. By undermining the uniqueness of the faith, blurring the line between the clergy and laity, relaxing the discipline of the church (something which has had disastrous effects in innumerable ways) and weakening the Popes power the council or the interpretations made of it engendered indifferentism, the loss of faith amongst many catholics and caused many others to be ignorant of their faith. This in turn undermined the churches authority and its ability to witness and proclaim the Gospel message to the world.

Again, I do not see the council doing anything what you described. These “interpretations” you speak of are nothing more than these Protestant influences that has creeped in over the years. Its not the weakness of the council that made this happen, its the strength of the heavy assault by the devil to use these pseudo Christian worship styles to distort our own view of our own faith.

The strict canonical discipline imposed by the church and The Popes supreme authority protected catholics from the many heresies and grave errors that surrounded them and when this was loosed not only the laity but many clergy succumbed to them.

In short yes the reformation is partly to blame but it could not have harmed the church if not for Vatican II.

Sorry but that is all just baseless propaganda. Again, tell my why Eastern Catholics and Orthodox have suffered the same faith when they neither have a “Novus Ordo” not a Vatican II council itself (for the Orthodox)?

 

[Marybeloved]

Christ himself tells us repeatedly throughout the Gospels the consequences of Christians forgetting their Vocation, '13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven. ’

Without the church then the world is unsalted, it is in darkness, it knows God not. Being in darkness and not knowing God it falls into the most grave and pernicious errors and becomes mired in them. It is clear then that if the church were ever to fail in its mission (though we know such to be impossible) or to shrink from its duty, the world would fall into darkness and sin. The logic is undeniable, if the church itself the ‘Salt of the Earth’ and ‘Light of the world’ has fallen into crisis how can it be said that the world will not also fall into crisis? ’

You know, this forum debates sometimes can be so difficult, just because there is so much truth and goodness in everyone’s views that one is baffled as to how to disagree without refuting all the truth in the other’s views. Take your beautiful Pope Leo XIII quotes, for example, just beautiful!

I completely agree with what you and Pope St. Leo say about the value of religion in society. I actually don’t think anyone here is even attempting to say that the society is ok without Christ- What would be the point of the church, then? However, I do get that you are trying to respond to my comment about the church in crisis translating to society in crisis? Of course, you are completely right. And that’s the gist of what the church has been saying to society, for as long as I can remember (yes, even in it’s vatican II documents). That’s the fight right now in the world, no? Aggressive Securalism vs Christianity.

What we do not agree on is of course, the suggestion that Vatican II and the crisis in the church that followed it somehow caused the chaos in the society that we see! I’m saying, that God the Holy Spirit is the church’s invisible captain and navigator. Why would he inspire the church’s leadership to do a thing that is so bad, as people tend to see Vatican II as? If there was crisis, it’s because there was a problem in the church to begin with that may have in the pre-vatican II church remained hidden in our rich and uniform tradition. Who knows, perhaps our lord wanted to weed out the unfaithful ones by forcing everything to the fore. More and more people do leave the church, yes- but which people and why?-The disobedient ones as always, even in the beginning when our lord asked his followers “will you also leave?” Those who obey the church and continue with her have answered with st. Peter “Where else shall we go, lord- You have the words of eternal life.”

If we believe that God the Holy Spirit was given to the church by our lord and shall remain with her to the end, that what the magisterium has loosed or bound is similarly loosed and bound in heaven, why should we think that this changed during vatican II? That somehow the Holy Spirit deserted the church then? Isn’t this what we are saying when we complain so bitterly about Vatican II? God knows far more than we.

In desolation, we may think that we are losing and that indeed all is lost, but when consolation comes, we look back and see that it was a time of testing and that we have emerged victorious- And the lord guarantees that the Church shall always, always emerge victorious, that her victories are always miraculous and astounding- Vatican II is guidance issuing from the church’s magisterium. Whether or not you believe it taught dogma or was simply pastoral, you must surely believe it was guided by the Holy Spirit- Let’s actually practice some faith and believe even in ‘the darkness’.

 

[TrentCath]

Again, goes back to the Reformation. Since the Pope and the Bishops were left without any authority, whats their use then?

I am afraid that the Modernists and the ‘Reformers’ have very little in common, whereas the Reformers would at least try to appeal to scripture in an attempt to justify their actions and it was at least in theory possible to dispute them Modernists do not accept any authority but their own including the bible.

What Protestantized Catholic worship isn’t Vatican II. Even the Orthodox Churches have suffered Protestant influence to some degree. As I said in my previous post, non-Catholic and even non-Orthodox forces are plenty. Their influence is more than we would admit. And truly so, I’ve seen so many Catholic resort to sola scriptura, trying to find verses to prove their beliefs or justify their actions. Where did they get that I suppose? I don’t recall Vatican II ever resorting to sola scriptura.

I find it troubling that you link Catholics using bible verses to prove their beliefs as ‘Sola Scriptura’, Saints, church fathers, popes and councils have ALWAYS used the bible to justify their teachings and the churches Dogmas. This is clear in the texts of the Church councils, almost every enycyclical ever written, the writings of the fathers and that of the saints.To attack the practice of using scripture to defend the beliefs of Holy Mother Church is to attack a practice older than the church, as Christ himself used the Old Testament to justify his actions and teachings

Again, I do not see the council doing anything what you described. These “interpretations” you speak of are nothing more than these Protestant influences that has creeped in over the years. Its not the weakness of the council that made this happen, its the strength of the heavy assault by the devil to use these pseudo Christian worship styles to distort our own view of our own faith.

**So you would have it that the church maintained the faith for 400 odd years and then suddenly in the space of 10 or 20 years lost tens of thousands of religious and secular clergy, heresies such as liberation theology, liberalism and modernism sprang up everywhere and thats just the result of the ‘steady creeping in of protestantism’? That seems unlikely to the extreme. The church resisted the reformation for 400 or so years, something must have changed from within in order to cause it so suddenly and so quickly suffer disaster. The easiest way to show this is the striking diference between the 1917 and 1983 codes of canon law, in one Catholics are banned from taking part in protestant prayer services under pain of excommunication, in the other they are not, in one only catholics may receive communion under severe canonical penalties in the other Eastern Orthodox and possibly even other christians may under certain circumstances. The list of striking departures from the traditional teachings of the church and the previous code is frankly endless.

Again to state that there is no problem with the council itself, that all the problem lies in the interpretations of it is absurd, so every interpretation since the ending of the council has been wrong? For there has not been even one good interpretation that has not assisted in the destruction of the church.
**

Sorry but that is all just baseless propaganda. Again, tell my why Eastern Catholics and Orthodox have suffered the same faith when they neither have a “Novus Ordo” not a Vatican II council itself (for the Orthodox)?

**If you think it is all ‘Baseless Propaganda’ then I strongly suggest you read Pope St Pius X’s encyclical PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS, the similiarity between what he calls the doctrines of the modernists and those pulled out from Vatican II is striking.

I ask you has there ever been a council that has caused the church so much trouble? Has there ever been one that explicitly declared itself ‘Pastoral’ and ‘not binding unless the council states so’?

Did not out lord say ‘by your fruits you shall know them’ “. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” Matthew 7:15-20

Tell me then what are the good fruits of Vatican II? Compare them to its bad fruits, namely the loss of tens of thousands of priests and religious, the scandalous actions of many priests, bishops and even cardinals which they justify either by the council itself or what is worse ‘The spirit of the council’ and the loss of faith of millions if not tens of millions catholics.

Pope Paul VI spoke of the crisis the church was undergoing on repeated occassions. On December 7, 1969 the Holy Father said “The Church finds herself in a period of anxiety, of self-criticism, one could say of self-destruction. It is like an internal upheaval, serious and complex–as if the Church were flagellating herself.”

On June 29, 1972 (Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul) the holy father said “The smoke of Satan has entered by some crack into the temple of God; doubt, uncertainty, problems, restlessness, dissatisfaction and confrontation have come to the surface… doubt has entered our consciences.”

**

 

[TrentCath]

The fundamental error of the council is not the undermining of canonical discipline, collegiality, ecumenicism or any of the other things traditionalists speak of. Rather it is the councils obsession with ‘attuning to the spirit of the age’, this in fact means abandoning whatever is in opposition to the ‘spirit of the world’ and attempting to reconcile the ‘spirit of the world’ with ‘The Holy Spirit’. This leads the church to embrace whatever heresies and errors are fashionable at the time, put simply the other problems with the council are simply accidents whereas the idea of ‘attuning to the spirit of the age’ is the substance.

Eastern Catholics have been affected by this idea of ‘Attuning to the spirit of the age’ as much as ‘Western Catholics’, all belong to one body and because the errors of the modernists are spread ‘through the veins of the church’ all are affected and to some extent infected or at least exposed to infection.

However the Council dealt directly with the Eastern churches in its document ‘On The Eastern Churches’ and what were the direct and unique results of the council on Eastern Catholics?

It has led to an antagonistic conflict between not just Eastern and Western Traditions but also to Eastern and Western Theology. This has led to absurd and erroneous interpretations of such things as Ecclesiology, Papal Primacy, Papal Infallibility, which councils are and aren’t ecumenical, purgatory and so on. These interpretations are made not according to the spirit of the church but according to their ‘genuine traditions’ which many Eastern Catholics seem to think is whatever the Orthodox Church believes. The end result? Many Eastern Catholics embrace that church’s teachings even when it conflicts with the teachings of The Church, as if their traditions could be ‘genuine’ if they were contrary to what The Catholic Church proclaims to be the truth.

Furthermore people are discouraged from praying the Rosary and such devotions as the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the Immaculate Heart of Mary and so on. As if such devotions were revealed by God only to benefit some of the church! Just because these devotions emerged in the ‘west’ does not mean they should be confined to the west, they are clearly for the benefit of the WHOLE church, not just some of it! It is absurd to say that these devotions are ‘contrary to the tradition’ of the Eastern Church, having been revealed by our saviour Jesus Christ or Our Lady they can hardly said to be harmful or contrary to the tradition of the church!

It is one thing to preserve one’s own liturgy and worship and another to toss out anything ‘Latin’ merely because it is Latin, that is not helpful to anyone and deprives Eastern Catholics of the rich tradition of The Church. To give an example, Incense in the mass is believed by many Liturgists such as Dom Prosper Gueranger to have come from the East, should the ‘Western church’ therefore reject that as an ‘Easternization’? The traditions of the church are universal, they are neither Eastern or Western, dividing the church in two and forbidding the two to mix in anyway is contrary to the timeless tradition of the church.

As for why other Christian’s and even religions have suffered, the church weakened by grave errors and heresies in the church militant is unable to resist the heresies and errors of this age and proclaim the truth. Because of this the errors and heresies of this age flourish and many in the world succumb to them and perish.

 

[TrentCath]

If we believe that God the Holy Spirit was given to the church by our lord and shall remain with her to the end, that what the magisterium has loosed or bound is similarly loosed and bound in heaven, why should we think that this changed during vatican II? That somehow the Holy Spirit deserted the church then? Isn’t this what we are saying when we complain so bitterly about Vatican II? God knows far more than we.

One doesn’t have to think about it, one simply has to compare The Catechism of The Council of Trent, The Catechism of St Pius X or the Baltimore Catechism with the ‘new’ Catechism or the 1917 Code of Canon Law with the 1983 Code of Canon Law and one can see the differences. They are not matters of opinion, they are facts. Just because much of the church teaches something that is wrong does not mean that the Holy Spirit has abandoned the church no more than the existence of three popes simultaneously in the 14th century does or the embracing of conciliarism by an at least partly encumenical council (The Council of Constance). The problem is that this is all far more complicated than a clear cut ‘anything the church teaches must be right becauses Jesus said…’, the history of the church shows us this is the case.

In desolation, we may think that we are losing and that indeed all is lost, but when consolation comes, we look back and see that it was a time of testing and that we have emerged victorious- And the lord guarantees that the Church shall always, always emerge victorious, that her victories are always miraculous and astounding- Vatican II is guidance issuing from the church’s magisterium. Whether or not you believe it taught dogma or was simply pastoral, you must surely believe it was guided by the Holy Spirit- Let’s actually practice some faith and believe even in ‘the darkness’.

I don’t deny that God tests his church, indeed I think that the Church is in some measure undergoing tests and punishment and has been for the last 50 years. I do not believe that at least some of Vatican II was guided by the holy spirit no more than I believe that the error of Arianism that was supported by almost all the bishops in the world and possibly even the Pope was guided by the holy spirit. I do not believe that it was completely guided by the holy spirit no more than I believe that the first half of the Council of Constance was or the Pseudo-Council of Pisa.

I have not lost Faith in God or his church, it is because of my faith that I see the striking difference between what has come out of that council and what has come out of any other council.

 

[Bluegoat]

I don’t think we can blame increased secularization in society on the Reformation, nor on Vatican II, or probably on any one thing.

Something interesting to consider historically is the Canadian province of Quebec. It was once among the most Catholic of cultures, even at the level of government, which was hand in glove with the Catholic Church. Now, it is among the most secular cultures in North America. The change, which was called the Quiet Revolution, happened before Vatican II, and I suspect the things that caused it are the same things that Vatican II may have been looking to reform.

I am not an expert on this, but I can point to a few things that I think bear consideration. One is that these cultures where state and Church are so close seem to actually cause defection - that was one of the big problems that made the Protestant Reformation possible - a misunderstanding of the Church/state relationship. And this isn’t necessarily something rejected by Protestants, as we see just as many examples of it in their history.

And to an extent, a level of secularization - the separation of Church and state - seems to be a way to prevent this problem rather than an entirely bad result of it.

Also, I do think Catholic treatment of the liturgy may have been an issue. In Latin, it wasn’t understood to be the primary, active teaching tool of the laity any longer. And that is something Vatican II sought to address, except then they created a liturgy that really was an inadequate teaching tool as well. So you end up with a lot of people who are poorly educated in the faith. Not just one generation, but for many generations.

Something else I have noticed is that many Catholic laity actually have an attitude to Scripture and even to the Magesterium that is more like a Protestant attitude than the Eastern Churches. I’m not sure if I can quite put my finger on that, but it is something I notice a lot.

But I think these are just elements. It is probably pretty complex in the end.

 

[TrentCath]

I am not an expert on this, but I can point to a few things that I think bear consideration. One is that these cultures where state and Church are so close seem to actually cause defection - that was one of the big problems that made the Protestant Reformation possible - a misunderstanding of the Church/state relationship.

Martin Luther was in many ways far closer to the state and far entrenched in a union of church and state than the Catholic Church ever was and indeed it was this union that enabled him to evade the judgment of The Catholic Church for so long and propogate his errors so widely. I hardly see therefore how a church-state relationship was in anyway problematic

And to an extent, a level of secularization - the separation of Church and state - seems to be a way to prevent this problem rather than an entirely bad result of it.

I can’t see how any level of secularisation could benefit the church? Secularism is anathema to the church, in any form, any amount of it is harmful both to the church and to the state. Seperating church and state robs the church of its legitmate rights to rely on the secular arm to enforce its doctrines and protect it from heresis and other faiths. The state on the other hand loses its moral authority.

Pope Pius IX in his syallbus of errors condemned the idea as he lists one of the ideas that ought to be condemned in his syllabus of errors as ‘55. T****he Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church’

Pope Pius X goes more in depth as to why the union between church and state is so necessart in his encyclical Vehmenter Nos where he says '…3. That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man’s eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man’s supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. Our illustrious predecessor, Leo XIII, especially, has frequently and magnificently expounded Catholic teaching on the relations which should subsist between the two societies. “Between them,” he says, "there must necessarily be a suitable union, which may not improperly be compared with that existing between body and soul.-- "[1] ’

Also, I do think Catholic treatment of the liturgy may have been an issue. In Latin, it wasn’t understood to be the primary, active teaching tool of the laity any longer. And that is something Vatican II sought to address, except then they created a liturgy that really was an inadequate teaching tool as well.

The primary teaching tool of the church has always been catechisis and the sermon or homily, it served the church well for 1900 or so years and can hardly have said to have benefited post Vatican II. And as for making the mass the primary teaching tool? Well lets just say I’ve encounted enough catholics who refuse to believe De Fide teachings and subscribe to heresy either privately or publically and do not hesistate in making every attempt to spread their grievous errors to others.

Something else I have noticed is that many Catholic laity actually have an attitude to Scripture and even to the Magesterium that is more like a Protestant attitude than the Eastern Churches. I’m not sure if I can quite put my finger on that, but it is something I notice a lot.

This doesn’t really surprise or trouble me, Protestants broke away from the Catholic church only a few hundred years ago whilst the Orthodox church left a 1000 or so years ago and had resisted the influence of the west for several hundred years before this. It’s only logical therefore that protestants would have a more catholic way of dealing with scripture, in the main at least, then most of the Eastern Churches.