Vatican II All Over Again

[Dempsey1919]

Try this experiment:

Compare the LIBERAL INTERPRETATIONS of the Pope’s words with how the Pope GOVERNS THE CHURCH. See the difference?

The liberals who think Pope Francis will change dogma and give dissenters an easy ride will be very disappointed. Our Holy Father is not a liberal theologian and he will not change immemorial Church teaching.

I also think it would be a good idea if we stopped debating what the Pope means every time he says something off the cuff. A better idea is to wait for his official pronouncements and actions.

 

[McCall1981]

Try this experiment:

Compare the LIBERAL INTERPRETATIONS of the Pope’s words with how the Pope GOVERNS THE CHURCH. See the difference?

The liberals who think Pope Francis will change dogma and give dissenters an easy ride will be very disappointed. Our Holy Father is not a liberal theologian and he will not change immemorial Church teaching.

I also think it would be a good idea if we stopped debating what the Pope means every time he says something off the cuff. A better idea is to wait for his official pronouncements and actions.

Your point about comparing the liberal interpretation of his words to the way he actually governs is very well taken. I was trying to say the same thing in another thread, but you said it better here.

The LCWR reform, Luman Fidei, Curial appointments, defrocking dissident priests; all of these do not fit with the media’s (mis)interpretation of his words

I sincerely hope that over time more people including the media will start to see this, and all of this craziness will die down. What I’m afraid of is that even if they DO eventually see this, they will ignore it and will continue on with the false narrative anyway.

 

[McCall1981]

So the solution is what? That Francis never speaks to the secular media? That dissident Catholics crawl into a hole and die? That Francis never uses any and all means to reach out to people? That “washing one’s hands” of all those who have left the Church and never attempting to reach out to them is the thing to do?

What then?

I’m not asking these questions to be difficult, I honestly want to understand the mindset – if speaking in the secular media is “bad” and “risky” because of the possibility of unintentional or unintentional misinterpretation then what is the solution???

What would you tell Francis to do?

Well, in my personal opinion, I think it’s just being aware of what the media seizes on. For example, when he said “who am I to judge?”, the statement itself is perfectly true and fine. But he, and any Church leader, needs to be aware that this phrasing is exactly what the media is looking for to cause confusion.

You’re absolutely right that the media will always try to manipulate his words, and that no one can totally prevent it from happening. But a certain prudence in speaking can at least limit these cases.

Below is an article from Fr. Z that I think explains it pretty well. It’s about how NARAL “thanked” Pope Francis. Of course the next day Francis “blasted” abortion, so the NARAL stunt is ridiculous, but the fact remains that this message is out there and is causing problems.

wdtprs.com/blog/2013/09/naral-screwed-up-big-time-over-pope-francis-tbi-but-they-still-win/#comments

"Some bloggers are heaping derision on NARAL. That derision is well deserved. After all, the day after TBI, Pope Francis spoke in strong and clear terms in direct contradiction to NARAL most hallowed sacrament, abortion.

Here’s the problem.

Derision aimed at NARAL on this monumental screw-up, though amusing and proper, is really just a victory on points alone. NARAL will arguably have done more harm with that ad than any embarrassment they suffer from how obtuse they are.

NO ONE knows about true content of the Pope’s speech the day after TBI.

EVERYONE knows about TBI through the distorted, or at best limited, coverage it received."

 

[janeway529]

At the end of Vatican II, liberals thought they had been given permission to remake the Church, and off they ran. Naturally, they were aided by their willing accomplices in the media.

It took 40 years and two popes, JPII and BXVI, to reign them in.

Are we seeing the pontificate of Pope Francis being hijacked in the same manner?

Nope, what you are seeing is the decline of a culture which no longer knows which lens to see and read Pope Francis’ message. What happened before, during and after the Second Vatican Council, was the mistaken belief that “everything in the Church is up in the air” due to the Council. Add in the chaos and confusion caused by wars, the sexual revolution, and the different movements in response to these events, and you have the perfect storm of dissent.

The greatness of the Holy Spirit through Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI in the Second Vatican Council was recognizing that the classical Christian bubble was going to burst soon and to prepare us for the aftermath.

 

[Jaysuitical]

Starting with Cardinal Suenens, who first developed the “real Council within the Council” idea – i.e., the ‘conservatives’ had stopped the Council from casting off tradition period – the game has been Pope vs. Pope. After “Black Week”, John XXIII became the Good Pope who would have accepted all the agenda of the Dutch theologians and their friends; then after a couple of years of John Paul II, Paul VI became the Good Pope. I encountered one homosexual Catholic who disparaged Benedict and said “John Paul was our pope”. Now it’s reversed – because Francis is trying to call to sinners to come, he’s suddenly the Good Pope to Benedict’s baddie.

 

[JReducation]

Just this week the Holy Father came out against the use of terms such as liberals and conservatives in the Catholic Church. And these words appear in the first paragraph of this thread and throughout.

All of us, including me, need to remember that the Church has always been in crisis and will always be in crisis. We must remember that she has been surrounded and infiltrated with people who have agendas. This is not new.

Let us not forget that some of what the media and others have to say is not because they’re deliberately trying to put words in the Pope’s mouth. They truly don’t understand. They’re going to grad on to what they think they understand. In those cases, my policy is to correct those who ask me and move along.

Our community has two components that form the society. There are the consecrated brothers who live the Franciscan life in community. Then there are the secular brothers who live the Franciscan life both in community and outside. They come and go to the community two or three times per wee.

I have spent a great deal of time teaching them to live as the great saints did. St. Francis did not care what the pope did or said in Rome, what the bishop did or say in Assisi or what the king and subjects through of what the pope said, no said, did or not do. He dearly loved the Church, because, she is the bride of Christ. He trusted, because history repeats itself. For those who are attached to God, the war is never lost, only a few battle.

 

[McCall1981]

Starting with Cardinal Suenens, who first developed the “real Council within the Council” idea – i.e., the ‘conservatives’ had stopped the Council from casting off tradition period – the game has been Pope vs. Pope. After “Black Week”, John XXIII became the Good Pope who would have accepted all the agenda of the Dutch theologians and their friends; then after a couple of years of John Paul II, Paul VI became the Good Pope. I encountered one homosexual Catholic who disparaged Benedict and said “John Paul was our pope”. Now it’s reversed – because Francis is trying to call to sinners to come, he’s suddenly the Good Pope to Benedict’s baddie.

So, when those who are trying to manipulate his words eventually see that Francis is orthodox, do you think they will turn on him? Or do you think they will ignore his orthodoxy and press on saying that he’s changing everything?

 

[Jaysuitical]

So, when those who are trying to manipulate his words eventually see that Francis is orthodox, do you think they will turn on him? Or do you think they will ignore his orthodoxy and press on saying that he’s changing everything?

One of Pope Francis’ friends said that he thought it a strong possibility that he might declare the Fifth Marian dogma during his pontificate; this would definitely cause the corporate media to turn on him ferociously.

The best thing when people ask about these things, instead of ranting about press liberalism is to simply disparage the ability of the money-media to do anything except spread gossip. They aren’t remotely friends of the Church, even when they cover a Church event as spectacle.

 

[McCall1981]

One of Pope Francis’ friends said that he thought it a strong possibility that he might declare the Fifth Marian dogma during his pontificate; this would definitely cause the corporate media to turn on him ferociously.

The best thing when people ask about these things, instead of ranting about press liberalism is to simply disparage the ability of the money-media to do anything except spread gossip. They aren’t remotely friends of the Church, even when they cover a Church event as spectacle.

I’m sorry, what is the Fifth Marian dogma?

 

[TimothyH]

Just this week the Holy Father came out against the use of terms such as liberals and conservatives in the Catholic Church. And these words appear in the first paragraph of this thread and throughout.

All of us, including me, need to remember that the Church has always been in crisis and will always be in crisis. We must remember that she has been surrounded and infiltrated with people who have agendas. This is not new.

Let us not forget that some of what the media and others have to say is not because they’re deliberately trying to put words in the Pope’s mouth. They truly don’t understand. They’re going to grad on to what they think they understand. In those cases, my policy is to correct those who ask me and move along.

Our community has two components that form the society. There are the consecrated brothers who live the Franciscan life in community. Then there are the secular brothers who live the Franciscan life both in community and outside. They come and go to the community two or three times per wee.

I have spent a great deal of time teaching them to live as the great saints did. St. Francis did not care what the pope did or said in Rome, what the bishop did or say in Assisi or what the king and subjects through of what the pope said, no said, did or not do. He dearly loved the Church, because, she is the bride of Christ. He trusted, because history repeats itself. For those who are attached to God, the war is never lost, only a few battle.

Never think that no one hears you or that no one is listening. I am listening, and I read your post about simplicity. Thank you.

-Tim-

 

[McCall1981]

One of Pope Francis’ friends said that he thought it a strong possibility that he might declare the Fifth Marian dogma during his pontificate; this would definitely cause the corporate media to turn on him ferociously.

The best thing when people ask about these things, instead of ranting about press liberalism is to simply disparage the ability of the money-media to do anything except spread gossip. They aren’t remotely friends of the Church, even when they cover a Church event as spectacle.

Nevermind, I looked it up, the fifth Marian dogma is co-redemptirx.

Why do you think it would “cause the corporate media to turn on him ferociously”?

 

[YoungTradCath]

Nevermind, I looked it up, the fifth Marian dogma is co-redemptirx.

Why do you think it would “cause the corporate media to turn on him ferociously”?

“LOOK AT HIM, THE TRAITOR OF OUR CAUSE, as he pontificates from his golden throne, dressed in splendid clothing*, pronouncing definitive language in the vilest of all tongues, Latin!”

That is the likely flavor of popular criticisms of dogmatic definitions from Pope Francis.

*You know, I always find it more than a bit hilarious that writers and editors of major publications/media outlets will criticize the Pope for wearing well-made clothing when they themselves are likely dressed in the finest Italian suits and dresses and the best English shoes. It’s all a bit… I don’t know… to use their word, hypocritical. =)

 

[McCall1981]

“LOOK AT HIM, THE TRAITOR OF OUR CAUSE, as he pontificates from his golden throne, dressed in splendid clothing*, pronouncing definitive language in the vilest of all tongues, Latin!”

That is the likely flavor of popular criticisms of dogmatic definitions from Pope Francis.

*You know, I always find it more than a bit hilarious that writers and editors of major publications/media outlets will criticize the Pope for wearing well-made clothing when they themselves are likely dressed in the finest Italian suits and dresses and the best English shoes. It’s all a bit… I don’t know… to use their word, hypocritical. =)

Ha, I’d like to see this happen

 

[edwest2]

Isn’t that what they did after Vatican II?

What Went Wrong With Vatican II
by Ralph McInerny
ewtn.com/library/Theology/SIPVAT2.HTM

No. Having been there before and after Vatican II, a planned, coordinated attack was put together. It happened inside the Church, outside the Church, at upper levels and at the street level. It culminated in 1968 in an act of defiance against Pope Paul VI’s encyclical, Humanae Vitae, which reaffirmed The Church’s constant teaching against artificial contraception. A full page ad was taken out in the New York Times, 24 hours after it was published, by some Catholic theologians where they defied the Pope and told the Catholic laity they thought ABC was OK. Birth control pills had to be sold! The Sex without love or commitment Revolution had to begin. Soon, anarchists and Hippies appeared in our neighborhoods. While saying Peace and Love, all they left behind was “using illegal drugs is OK, especially smoking dope.” “Don’t trust anyone over 30!” And live with and have sex with your girlfriend. Marriage? Who needs it?

Soon, books on Eastern philosophy and religion were everywhere. Head Shops (Head being short for Dopehead) opened selling dirty comic books and underground newspapers that promoted anarchy, Marxism and general revolt against authority. I remember opening one and seeing an “Eat the Rich” poster. They lived in sin openly, used profanity and promoted porn and casual sex. And when their parents or relatives or even neighbors they had grown up with tried to point out what they were doing was wrong, all we got was: “Leave us alone! We’re grown adults! We’ll live how we want!!! We got FREEEdom!!!” No, they had slavery to dope and sex, and booze. Their ‘brothers’ encouraged them to try yoga, Zen, anything but Christianity. Become a member of the Krishnas. Tell Catholics, “You know what the problem is with you Catholics? You’re sexually repressed!” Uh, no. We wanted to get married and have sex and have children, because that’s what sex is for.

And they sent their better-dressed counterparts to convince the heads of Catholic institutions of hiring learning to embrace FREEEdom! So some cut their ties with the Church hierarchy, and people wonder, what happened?

We were lied to during a period of history in the West where the government and the media respected and reflected Christians values. But those who are against Christianity labor to this day. The wolves came in many guises.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Mike30]

Nevermind, I looked it up, the fifth Marian dogma is co-redemptirx.

Why do you think it would “cause the corporate media to turn on him ferociously”?

Well mainly because that particular area is reviled by a lot of people, protestants, Orthodox, almost all non Catholic Christians and a big part of the current Catholic population including a pretty big slice of the Clergy itself. The whole co-redemptrix thought is not well received in many areas and flat out rejected in most.

 

[edwest2]

Yes, that is exactly what’s happening.

The thing that gives me hope is that Vat II was unfortunately timed so that it coincided with 60’s/70’s social revolution, which I think greatly exacerbated the problem. I think the Church is not in that same situation now, so maybe the results will not be as severe. At least that’s what I’m hoping and praying for.

It did not, in any way, shape or form, coincide. The planned attack on normal life commenced after the end of Vatican II, which was 1965.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Your point about comparing the liberal interpretation of his words to the way he actually governs is very well taken. I was trying to say the same thing in another thread, but you said it better here.

The LCWR reform, Luman Fidei, Curial appointments, defrocking dissident priests; all of these do not fit with the media’s (mis)interpretation of his words

I sincerely hope that over time more people including the media will start to see this, and all of this craziness will die down. What I’m afraid of is that even if they DO eventually see this, they will ignore it and will continue on with the false narrative anyway.

Your last sentence is the path they are on now. To keep trying to damage the Church and quoting Pope Francis only partially, often without proper context, and adding their own spin or interpretation.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Nope, what you are seeing is the decline of a culture which no longer knows which lens to see and read Pope Francis’ message. What happened before, during and after the Second Vatican Council, was the mistaken belief that “everything in the Church is up in the air” due to the Council. Add in the chaos and confusion caused by wars, the sexual revolution, and the different movements in response to these events, and you have the perfect storm of dissent.

The greatness of the Holy Spirit through Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI in the Second Vatican Council was recognizing that the classical Christian bubble was going to burst soon and to prepare us for the aftermath.

It was a planned storm. Carefully planned. They did the bubble bursting.

Peace,
Ed

 

[McCall1981]

It did not, in any way, shape or form, coincide. The planned attack on normal life commenced after the end of Vatican II, which was 1965.

Peace,
Ed

Well, ok, they occured close together. My point is that Vat II happened around the same time as the social revolution and exacerbated the consequences. If Vat II had been exactly the same but occured 10, 25, 50 years earlier I dont think there would have been as many problems.

 

[choliks]

Well, ok, they occured close together. My point is that Vat II happened around the same time as the social revolution and exacerbated the consequences. If Vat II had been exactly the same but occured 10, 25, 50 years earlier I dont think there would have been as many problems.

I reckon that Vatican II happened because the Church sensed that society was changing (for the worse).