Vatican II All Over Again

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In the words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn

"This tilt of freedom toward evil has come about gradually, but it evidently stems from a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which man — the master of the world — does not bear any evil within himself, and all the defects of life are caused by misguided social systems, which must therefore be corrected. Yet strangely enough, though the best social conditions have been achieved in the West, there still remains a great deal of crime; there even is considerably more of it than in the destitute and lawless Soviet society. (There is a multitude of prisoners in our camps who are termed criminals, but most of them never committed any crime; they merely tried to defend themselves against a lawless state by resorting to means outside the legal framework.)

****The press, too, of course, enjoys the widest freedom. (I shall be using the word “press” to include all the media.) But what use does it make of it?

Here again, the overriding concern is not to infringe the letter of the law. There is no true moral responsibility for distortion or disproportion. What sort of responsibility does a journalist or a newspaper have to the readership or to history? If they have misled public opinion by inaccurate information or wrong conclusions, even if they have contributed to mistakes on a state level, do we know of any case of open regret voiced by the same journalist or the same newspaper? No; this would damage sales. A nation may be the worse for such a mistake, but the journalist always gets away with it. It is most likely that he will start writing the exact opposite to his previous statements with renewed aplomb.

Because instant and credible information is required, it becomes necessary to resort to guesswork, rumors, and suppositions to fill in the voids, and none of them will ever be refuted; they settle into the readers’ memory. How many hasty, immature, superficial, and misleading judgments are expressed everyday, confusing readers, and then left hanging?

The press can act the role of public opinion or miseducate it. Thus we may see terrorists heroized, or secret matters pertaining to the nation’s defense publicly revealed, or we may witness shameless intrusion into the privacy of well-known people according to the slogan "Everyone is entitled to know everything."
(But this is a false slogan of a false era; far greater in value is the forfeited right of people not to know, not to have their divine souls stuffed with gossip, nonsense, vain talk. A person who works and leads a meaningful life has no need for this excessive and burdening flow of information.)

**Hastiness and superficiality — these are the psychic diseases of the twentieth century and more than anywhere else this is manifested in the press. In-depth analysis of a problem is anathema to the press; it is contrary to its nature. The press merely picks out sensational formulas.
**
Such as it is, however, the press has become the greatest power within Western countries, exceeding that of the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. Yet one would like to ask: **According to what law has it been elected and to whom is it responsible? **In the Communist East, a journalist is frankly appointed as a state official. But who has voted Western journalists into their positions of power, for how long a time, and with what prerogatives?"
The press has been manipulated, knowingly and unknowingly. The media - the global media - is owned by a handful of giant corporations. Aside from some local newspapers and specialty publications, those in control do not just collect their paychecks, they can and in too many cases, are the mouthpieces of whatever cause their owners support. News stories are ‘killed’ because they would offend an important person, corporation or special interest group, who may pull his/its advertising if his wishes are not complied with.

Peace,
Ed
 
He quietly went to his death. Many of his followers were martyred.
Jesus Christ was not put to death for his ambiguous language. You and I living 2000 years later may not always get what he is saying but people in his time knew the core of his message and though it unacceptable. Jesus said that he was the Son of God and forgave sins (and the bread of life discourse). That was blasphemy in their eyes and that is why he was put to death. There was no ambiguity.
Force never solves anything. This is Christianity without the cross.
Contrary to your belief, Christianity is not a pacifist religion. Have you heard of the Alibigensian heresy? It was suppressed and successfully so with the use of the Crusades and the Inquisition.

There is also such a thing as JUST WAR doctrine in the Church.
You’re criticizing the conveyance of the faith by the successor to Peter.
Average Catholics take the Pope’s words at face value.
Our sidewalk prayer group is going to the clinic this Saturday. They don’t seem to be stuck in confusion and anxiety.
No one in this thread is questioning or criticizing the faith of Pope Francis. They are certainly criticizing his use of the language and style that creates ambiguity. That is a valid concern that one can raise.

As for your side walk prayer group, I would assume they were a group of faithful Catholics who already knew their faith. But even then, some of them were probably shaken. Now if you followed this thread, you should know that we are speaking here of those unfaithful Catholics who will use Pope Francis’s words as a tool to mislead the Church. We are simply saying that Pope Francis needs to be careful in his language or his faith will not matter as these men and women distort and reduce him to something of their own making.
 
Knowledge is power, they say. But Christianity is not about power. It is clear in the Gospels that the demons know God, they proclaim the truth of who Jesus is. They are full of knowledge. So? Our knowledge will turn to dust as Paul says in Corinthians:

While we are reading and posting on the internet, puffing up our knowledge, someone is down at the soup kitchen, someone else is at adoration, a single mother is working to send her kids to Catholic schools, someone is visiting the nursing home to care for the forgotten. Our knowledge will turn to dust someday.

And so? What are we to do? Catholics don’t control the media. People have been giving false testimony since that Friday morning 2000 years ago. What did Jesus do in the face of misunderstanding? Show some fortitude, continue to be faithful, love his enemies and those who are lost. He did it with very few words, and was completely misunderstood. What did most of his orthodox followers do? Abandon him. Notice he was not successful by the standards we are holding Francis to. There is a huge difference between being successful and being faithful, that distinction is lost in this discussion. If you want success and popularity, Christianity might not be for you.

Why do you worry about things that are outside the call God has given you this morning?
Regarding your last sentence:

ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-chaput-religious-liberty-depends-on-lay-faithful-not-bishops/

We must repeat the truth daily to combat the lies and deceptions being spread among the people in general, and the faithful.

Peace,
Ed
 
Ed, Thanks for your comments on what has happened to the press, especially when it comes to hard news stories - you are exactly right on .🙂
 
I think the main problem here is that you are not getting the full message. Knowledge includes information on how to love as well. Divine revelation itself, including the words of St. Paul is Knowledge. So St. Paul is not saying knowledge is not important just as much as he is not saying prophecy is not important.
This is what St Paul actually writes. Notice the word “all”
1If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.
8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
Divine revelation itself, including the words of St. Paul is Knowledge.
No, revelation itself is NOT knowledge. Divine revelation is first and foremost A PERSON, not knowledge or doctrine. Jesus is the fullness of revelation. “Knowing” in this sense means to have a relationship, not -merely- the intellectual grasping of doctrines. It is good to know doctrine and dogma, but St Paul subordinates all this to knowing Jesus Christ, who is love.
God defines himself as “love”. Notice St Paul is exalting love above all other gifts. We have knowledge of these other things, but they are based in a person, a relationship. All knowledge and truth etc is contained in a person. “The word became flesh” etc…The knowledge of doctrines cannot save you (it can help…), a relationship with a person is what saves you. All that Christ gives us…the Church, the sacraments, all teaching, spring from a person. That is why in the end, knowledge of the law turns to dust.
 
This is what St Paul actually writes. Notice the word “all”
So by your reasoning, even St. Paul’s saying it-self is not important. Seems to me like you haven’t thought about this that much.
No, revelation itself is NOT knowledge. Divine revelation is first and foremost A PERSON, not knowledge or doctrine. Jesus is the fullness of revelation.
Is that a claim from knowledge?
“Knowing” in this sense means to have a relationship, not -merely- the intellectual grasping of doctrines. It is good to know doctrine and dogma, but St Paul subordinates all this to knowing Jesus Christ, who is love.
God defines himself as “love”. Notice St Paul is exalting love above all other gifts. We have knowledge of these other things, but they are based in a person, a relationship. All knowledge and truth etc is contained in a person. “The word became flesh” etc…The knowledge of doctrines cannot save you (it can help…), a relationship with a person is what saves you. All that Christ gives us…the Church, the sacraments, all teaching, spring from a person. That is why in the end, knowledge of the law turns to dust.
To have a relationship is to grow in KNOWLEDGE of the other person. I don’t know how you want to spin this but there is no way out.

But I can see that you have a deep interest in this topic. Why don’t you create a separate thread to discuss it without derailing this thread? This thread, as I said, is not about what it means to have knowledge and whether it is a holy goal. Make another thread and we can talk about it to your hearts content. But this is not the thread for that and neither should we be telling others what to do with their time unless they asked us specifically as to what we suggest they do with their time.

Please make a new thread to discuss if you care so much about this “knowledge” topic.
 
Please make a new thread to discuss if you care so much about this “knowledge” topic.
Interesting. I was responding to the post below from a different poster.
I’m not sure how you became involved in the discussion.
But yes, maybe you could make a new thread to debate what St Paul is saying. 🤷
Originally Posted by larsont7 View Post
This seems to be the biggest issue. I think many here on CAF think that the majority of Catholics are as informed as they are. Problem is, those who care about their faith enough to post on a Catholic forum are probably much more informed then your everyday Catholic.
If every Catholic was as knowledgeable about the faith as a typical CAF poster, then Pope Francis’s choice of words would not be a cause of concern. However, because the majority of Catholics and non-Catholics get most of their “knowledge” from the mainstream media and not Catholic sources, then any ambiguity in our Holy Father’s words can become an easy target and result in damaging consequences.
 
For the sake of comparison, think of the media’s false narrative of Francis.

Now consider that in the first six months of his pontificate, we have:
  • reaffirmation of the LCWR reform
  • an excommunication of the priest who supports “gay” marriage and women’s ordination
  • an extemporaneous jaunt into the streets of Rome to meet an anti-abortion march
  • an explicit affirmation of the impossibility of women’s ordination
  • a public endorsement of Summorum Pontificum
  • a speech to Catholic physicians not to perform or cooperate in abortions
  • a call for a “profound” theology about women (read: a good theology that isn’t, as he put it “female machismo”)
  • repeated emphasis on the need for the Sacrament of Confession
  • repeated emphasis on the reality of the devil, evil and sin
 
Interesting. I was responding to the post below from a different poster.
I’m not sure how you became involved in the discussion.
But yes, maybe you could make a new thread to debate what St Paul is saying. 🤷
I am not the one here advancing an argument based on a theological interpretation of St. Paul. That would be you my friend. So if you want to convince anyone of your argument, you will have to first show the validity of your (or someone else’s) theological position.

If you feel that it can’t be done, then by all means don’t waste the effort creating a thread. But if you do feel like you are right in this matter, please do create on in the Scripture section.

Bottom line here is that you have tried to make this argument in a to a personal affair of advising others posters (like Larson) to do other things than post to gain knowledge or raise valid issues that knowledge has become clouded for some. That is not the topic under discussion here.
 
And argumentation like yours is the biggest problem in this thread.

No one is saying the Bible is not Orthodox. No one is saying that Pope Francis is not Orthodox. What everyone is pointing out is that the Pope Francis has been ambiguous in his language.

The Church is needed because she provides clear teaching for the faithful to follow by interpreting Bible and Tradition. When the Church itself is ambiguous in her teaching, that is when we get confusion and the Church becomes a tool to be used just as the Bible is used with respect to its ambiguous sounding passages.

So your example is a good one. But your analogy is a failure. This thread shows that ambiguous language is bad when used by the Church. That is because she is suppossed to teach the faithful very clearly. If the Church itself starts becoming equally ambiguous, then we just have the same problem as “Bible alone”.
First off I did not say that anyone here said that either the Bible or Pope Francis isn’t Orthodox. I mean really, I have seen this (false accusation of a false accusation) so many times in these threads that I am beginning to wonder if it is just some tactic. Be that as it may, my analogy still holds because neither the Bible or the Pope is ambiguous at all. The Church is the true interpreter of the Bible because only she can at the same time take into account, sacred Tradition, history, the initial audience, genre, and most importantly the guiding hand of the Divine Author the Holy Spirit. So what of Francis’s big interview. The history is now, and what way and how much the Holy Spirit is guiding him is anybodies guess. But what of genre? It 's and interview, conversation between two Jesuit priest, a wide ranging one in fact covering several topics; from his Ignatian spirituality, to what kind of man he sees himself as, his ideas about how the clergy should cary out its pastoral mission and so on. Who is the audience, the Jesuits first of all given the context of the interview and it’s printing in world wide Jesuit journals and so much of the language is Ignatian, 2nd would be the bishops and priest, 3rd would be the faithful and our brother Christians most specifically the EO, and lastly to the whole world. Taking all that into account he isn’t being ambiguous at all. And while when the Pope speaks publicly he is teaching in some degree or another it is still an interview. It is not an encyclical or even a homily, this is not Humanae Vitae or even The Theology of the Body. Given what it is, it is brilliant and at places beautiful and I can’t imagine many doing much better but it is still and interview. continued…
 
For the sake of comparison, think of the media’s false narrative of Francis.

Now consider that in the first six months of his pontificate, we have:
  • reaffirmation of the LCWR reform
  • an excommunication of the priest who supports “gay” marriage and women’s ordination
  • an extemporaneous jaunt into the streets of Rome to meet an anti-abortion march
  • an explicit affirmation of the impossibility of women’s ordination
  • a public endorsement of Summorum Pontificum
  • a speech to Catholic physicians not to perform or cooperate in abortions
  • a call for a “profound” theology about women (read: a good theology that isn’t, as he put it “female machismo”)
  • repeated emphasis on the need for the Sacrament of Confession
  • repeated emphasis on the reality of the devil, evil and sin
To add to that, we have today
The Holy Father concluded his reflections by returning to Herod’s question about the identity of Jesus, saying that many people today, “including us,” ask the same thing, to which the Word of God responds “You want to know who He is? Read what the Church tells you about Him, talk to Him in prayer and walk the street with him.”
The rest of the homily was pretty direct as well on the primacy of the Church. I also liked his very direct call to read the Catechism.
 
First off I did not say that anyone here said that either the Bible or Pope Francis isn’t Orthodox. I mean really, I have seen this (false accusation of a false accusation) so many times in these threads that I am beginning to wonder if it is just some tactic. Be that as it may, my analogy still holds because neither the Bible or the Pope is ambiguous at all. The Church is the true interpreter of the Bible because only she can at the same time take into account, sacred Tradition, history, the initial audience, genre, and most importantly the guiding hand of the Divine Author the Holy Spirit. So what of Francis’s big interview. The history is now, and what way and how much the Holy Spirit is guiding him is anybodies guess. But what of genre? It 's and interview, conversation between two Jesuit priest, a wide ranging one in fact covering several topics; from his Ignatian spirituality, to what kind of man he sees himself as, his ideas about how the clergy should cary out its pastoral mission and so on. Who is the audience, the Jesuits first of all given the context of the interview and it’s printing in world wide Jesuit journals and so much of the language is Ignatian, 2nd would be the bishops and priest, 3rd would be the faithful and our brother Christians most specifically the EO, and lastly to the whole world. Taking all that into account he isn’t being ambiguous at all. And while when the Pope speaks publicly he is teaching in some degree or another it is still an interview. It is not an encyclical or even a homily, this is not Humanae Vitae or even The Theology of the Body. Given what it is, it is brilliant and at places beautiful and I can’t imagine many doing much better but it is still and interview. continued…
Interviews are read by more people. Encyclicals are not.

If one is not careful, it wouldn’t matter if the Encyclicals have the truth. If the Pope wants to use the media, he has to understand that this is the case and always be clear.

If you think its not ambiguous, good for you! It means you are a very capable and informed Catholic. Not all of the people fit your bill. That is why you have confusion and some groups like NARAL even thanked him.

Lets not argue about whether or not the interview was ambiguous. IT WAS! The empirical evidence of how most people, including faithful Catholics reacted, proves it. If you want to get an example of direct unambiguous wording, just look at the condemnation of abortion the next day. That is direct wording. The interview was not.
 
But what we are saying is that his language is ambiguous
How exactly is his language ambiguous. He words are pretty straightforward, and ought to be taken at face value. Or is a claim of ambiguity being used as an excuse by those who do not actually like what the Holy Father is saying? They do not like the what they are hearing, so they claim that what he is saying is ambiguous?

This Pope is a very plain speaking guy, his words are not masked by ambiguity.
 
continuing…
Somebody here asked who could do more damage to the body of Christ, 1000 journalist or 10 angry Catholics trying to micromanage the Pope. The lies of journalist change and decay and can delude millions for a time but, the truth doesn’t change and doesn’t decay. But the truth must be spoken to be heard and spread and angry Catholic bloggers on the internet trying to micro manage the Pope are wasting their time, when they could be spreading the truth. So the truth will wait for someone else to take it up the call and millions will remain deluded for one day longer. Our Lord sent 12 men against Caesar’s legions and where is Caesar now, but the successor to St. Peter the fisherman is Francis.
 
How exactly is his language ambiguous. He words are pretty straightforward, and ought to be taken at face value. Or is a claim of ambiguity being used as an excuse by those who do not actually like what the Holy Father is saying? They do not like the what they are hearing, so they claim that what he is saying is ambiguous?

This Pope is a very plain speaking guy, his words are not masked by ambiguity.
I don’t have a problem with what he is saying, but his words are sometimes very ambigious.

As has been pointed out, all we have to do is look at the confusion that has followed some of his remarks. Catholic blogs, apologists etc have been pumping out articles to explain what he said. This wouldn’t be happening if there was no confusion.

If that’s not enough evidence, look at the conclusions that have been reached by some non-Catholics and the secular media. I think you would agree that some of the conclusions they have reached are false, correct? The fact that they were able to reach false conclusions means that the statement was not initially clear enough.
 
I don’t have a problem with what he is saying, but his words are sometimes very ambigious.

As has been pointed out, all we have to do is look at the confusion that has followed some of his remarks. Catholic blogs, apologists etc have been pumping out articles to explain what he said. This wouldn’t be happening if there was no confusion.

If that’s not enough evidence, look at the conclusions that have been reached by some non-Catholics and the secular media. I think you would agree that some of the conclusions they have reached are false, correct? The fact that they were able to reach false conclusions means that the statement was not initially clear enough.
The only confusion that is produced is when people like you point to the MSM articles (that no one really believes any more except when it is convenient ) and repeat in post after post that there is confusion and ambiguity and you point to each others post as proof that your right. You and your clan just keep on repeating the same thing over and over again. The repetition then convinces some poor fool who writes a post saying they are confused and then one of you links to that as proof. Sadly I don’t think your aware that you are feeding your own angst.
 
How exactly is his language ambiguous. He words are pretty straightforward, and ought to be taken at face value. Or is a claim of ambiguity being used as an excuse by those who do not actually like what the Holy Father is saying? They do not like the what they are hearing, so they claim that what he is saying is ambiguous?

This Pope is a very plain speaking guy, his words are not masked by ambiguity.
What may be so plain to a catechized Catholic is not plain to the majority of people. I guarantee that if I told a random non-Catholic friend of mine to sit and read the whole interview, the things this given person would take away from the piece are, “Abortion isn’t so bad, gay marriage isn’t fake or at least not so bad, and contraception isn’t so bad.”

Yes, even with the context, most non-Catholics are not going to understand. There are exceptions, very astute non-Catholics, but these are few.
 
the things this given person would take away from the piece are, “Abortion isn’t so bad, gay marriage isn’t fake or at least not so bad, and contraception isn’t so bad.”
And chances are, he’ll read no further.
 
“Abortion isn’t so bad, gay marriage isn’t fake or at least not so bad, and contraception isn’t so bad.”
Even in* this*, we have a statement of truth, and the point the Pope is making, as long as we correctly understand the missing part of the above statement. “… so bad … what?” That we can’t be forgiven? In comparison with other sin that good Catholics find easier to accept in themselves? So bad that the draw of holiness can not lead to sanctity?

The Pope is speaking to Catholics and we need to listen and take heed. (1 Cor. 10:12)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top