Vatican II All Over Again

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I’m not alone. I just discovered this:

What Did the Pope Say? The Risks (Part 2)
Posted on September 24th, 2013 by Squeaker in Catholicism
By squeaker

Yesterday, in part 1 of this series, we looked at the upside to Pope Francis’ recent controversial statements in the media. As far as I’m concerned, his message is bang on when it comes to the substance: faithful Catholics need to live and speak with less negativity and instead offer a more upbeat message in general.

However, Pope Francis’ approach poses some risks. His off-the-cuff style lends itself to misinterpretation and easy manipulation by the media. Why? Because when you prepare a written statement in advance, you can re-read it and have it proof-read by media-savvy colleagues who can help smooth the language to minimize risks of misinterpretation. Not so when you’re speaking off-the-cuff. This is not a trivial concern, especially considering how most Catholics don’t understand papal infallibility or the difference between Magisterial teaching and an off-the-cuff remark. There’s nothing we can do about his style, other than pray.

But there’s a longer term risk that we can and must be vigilant about. Listen to this precious insight from Father Z:

Here is an overarching concern I take away from my first readings.

Through interviews – and the coverage of interviews – a “virtual Francis” is being created. An interview, by its nature, can only go so far. Short questions and short responses only go so deep.

We have to make sure that, with all the media attention, with all these interviews, that the “virtual Francis” is not stronger than the real Francis.

That is exactly what Benedict XVI – in his last days as Pope – said and warned about how the Second Vatican Council was interpreted. The media and others created a virtual Council. Remember that? There is a Council of the Media and a Council of the Fathers.

Week by week a Francis of the Media is being crafted.

In other words, if the media have their way, it won’t really matter what the Holy Father really says, because the only message that will reach the people is the mangled version transmitted by the media. One manifestation of this “Francis of the Media” is the postcard produced by pro-choice activists thanking the Holy Father for his statements on abortion. Expect more of this.
​
+++

And read more of this here:

socon.ca/what-did-the-pope-say-the-risks-part-2/

I KNEW I was right. :yup:
 
Randy_Carson said:
Well, I’m not alone. I just discovered this:

What Did the Pope Say? The Risks (Part 2)
Posted on September 24th, 2013 by Squeaker in Catholicism
By squeaker

Yesterday, in part 1 of this series, we looked at the upside to Pope Francis’ recent controversial statements in the media. As far as I’m concerned, his message is bang on when it comes to the substance: faithful Catholics need to live and speak with less negativity and instead offer a more upbeat message in general.

However, Pope Francis’ approach poses some risks. His off-the-cuff style lends itself to misinterpretation and easy manipulation by the media. Why? Because when you prepare a written statement in advance, you can re-read it and have it proof-read by media-savvy colleagues who can help smooth the language to minimize risks of misinterpretation. Not so when you’re speaking off-the-cuff. This is not a trivial concern, especially considering how most Catholics don’t understand papal infallibility or the difference between Magisterial teaching and an off-the-cuff remark. There’s nothing we can do about his style, other than pray.

But there’s a longer term risk that we can and must be vigilant about. Listen to this precious insight from Father Z:

Here is an overarching concern I take away from my first readings.

Through interviews – and the coverage of interviews – a “virtual Francis” is being created. An interview, by its nature, can only go so far. Short questions and short responses only go so deep.

We have to make sure that, with all the media attention, with all these interviews, that the “virtual Francis” is not stronger than the real Francis.

That is exactly what Benedict XVI – in his last days as Pope – said and warned about how the Second Vatican Council was interpreted. The media and others created a virtual Council. Remember that? There is a Council of the Media and a Council of the Fathers.

Week by week a Francis of the Media is being crafted.

In other words, if the media have their way, it won’t really matter what the Holy Father really says, because the only message that will reach the people is the mangled version transmitted by the media. One manifestation of this “Francis of the Media” is the postcard produced by pro-choice activists thanking the Holy Father for his statements on abortion. Expect more of this.
​
+++

And read more of this here:

socon.ca/what-did-the-pope-say-the-risks-part-2/

I KNEW I was right. :yup:
Click to expand...
This brings up a good point. I dont think I would have any problem with anything Francis has said if it wasnt for the media/liberal reaction. Whats unfortunate is that the reaction is real, and really is harmful.
 
McCall1981 said:
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.
Click to expand...
What did it exacerbate exactly?

Peace,
Ed
 
McCall1981 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Imagine if Humanae Vitae did not come out during the sexual revolution?
 
edwest2 said:
What did it exacerbate exactly?

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I think the social revolution exacerbated the negative things that came after Vat II, like Litugical abuse, heterodoxy, etc. I think if there had not been a social revolution going on at the time, then there would have been fewer abuses of Vat II.

Vat II in a vacuum is great, but when surrounded by a social upheavel it lead to problems. I think the same thing about Francis’ remarks. In a vacuum they are great,but when they are surrounded by todays media and culture, they are just begging to be manipulated.
 
edwest2 said:
What did it exacerbate exactly?

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I think the social revolution exacerbated the negative things that came after Vat II, like Litugical abuse, heterodoxy, etc. I think if there had not been a social revolution going on at the time, then there would have been fewer abuses of Vat II.

Vat II in a vacuum is great, but when surrounded by a social upheavel it lead to problems. I think the same thing about Francis’ remarks. In a vacuum they are great, but when they are surrounded by todays media and culture, they are just begging to be manipulated.
 
Why is it that so many “faithful” Catholics are running around worrying like bunch of ninnies. Did not our lord Jesus Christ not promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church!!! Benedict XVI and Francis have delivered the same message about the Church and yet our enemy describes one as God’s Rottweiler and the other as the great progressive hero. Is he not the father of lies and why do you think he has attacked the Popes thusly, because they are leading us astray. WE HAVE THE PROMISES OF OUR LORD, WE SHOULD BE BOLD. Go forth and do not let the enemies of the Church cause you to lose a single ounce of HOPE.

ed and McCall

C. S. Lewis wrote a series of letters in the fifties describing 10 years before the start of VII the lose of Faith in Europe. Here is a link to an article on his Latin Letters. VII was not even a twinkle in John XXIII eye and Pius XII was still pope.
 
Good intentions not-withstanding, the press is and will hi-jack the narrative. I think the Church has fallen into the trap over the years by siding with the statists by becoming overinvolved in believing that state welfare programs are charity. We are now reaping the diminished freedom and the attacks on all Christian faiths being led by the same pro-large government progressives and their will accomplices in the press.
 
JReducation said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thank you. That was my first thought when I read the topic and am surprised it took a page and a half before someone said this.

As to the question, yes and no. It is Vatican II all over again, and Vatican I and pretty much most of Church history all over again. That’s the yes part. The “no” part is that there is nothing new under the sun. People have it in their nature to only hear what they want to hear. It is why rumor run rampant and the internet is full of misinformation. The only reason the Pope’s statement bring concern is be cause he is speaking. The only way to avoid misinterpretation is to remain silent. That does not seem to be Pope Francis.

When the Church speaks on moral issues like abortion and homosexuality, people like to twist words to fit their views. When the Church speaks on theological issues, like the Marian dogmas, the same thing happens. Are we to stay silent on Mary because some will say we make her equal with God? Of course not. Likewise, the Holy Father needs to call the Church to task if he sees us getting out of balance with respect to legalism versus charity.
 
McCall1981 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Mass reforms started in 1948, if not earlier. I would imagine other things (collegiality, ecumenism, etc.) were on the drawing board back then as well. Just sayin.
 
JReducation said:
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.
Click to expand...
The words “liberals” and “conservatives” do not appear in my OP.
 
Randy_Carson said:
The words “liberals” and “conservatives” do not appear in my OP.
Click to expand...
Umm, yes, the word “liberals” did appear:
Randy_Carson said:
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?
Click to expand...
My bold.
 
McCall1981 said:
I thought this was a pretty good article, and it’s positive:

5 Reasons to think differently about Pope Francis

catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=594
Click to expand...
The entire article seems to be based on point #1. Problem is that we know from history that #1 is not true. We have Pope Honorius for an example whose actions/decisions alone will undermine the weight of the entire article.

Christ will protect the Church by making all things work for the good in the long term. The Church will always be around. That does not mean that each and individual Pope will always make the best decision. They may make the worst decision ever like in the case of Pope Honorius.
 
OraLabora said:
Umm, yes, the word “liberals” did appear:

My bold.
Click to expand...
Well they appear, so what? They appear in the replies criticizing it’s appearance too. Words such as those are used to easily describe a group so that no one has to give a description from scratch. To get caught up on the usage of the word/s is therefore petty.

Seems to me like people are not understanding the message and just trying to use the Pope’s words as a tool to shut down argument.
 
OraLabora said:
Umm, yes, the word “liberals” did appear:

My bold.
Click to expand...
Pope Francis uses labels like “Gnostics”, “Pelagians”, “Triumphalists”, etc, to describe segments of the Cathollic population or streams of Catholic thought.

He also recently said “right winger”.

Why can’t we use “liberals” and “conservatives”.
 
Randy_Carson said:
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?
Click to expand...
I think you make a great point but people here don’t seem to understand you.

For people to better understand
  1. Vatican II was Catholic to the Core
  2. The Pope’s and hierarchy did do their best to curb misunderstandings of Vatican II
  3. There were external social trends that made it easier to misinterpret Vatican II
  4. Vatican II became the foundation for all things liberal in the Church.
So lets see the Pope Francis case
  1. Pope Francis is Catholic to the core – Check
  2. Pope Francis himself and the hierarchy do try to react fast to curb the misunderstandings of the Pope – Check
  3. There are not only newer external social trends but the old trends are now well established – Check
  4. Pope Francis will become the foundation for all things liberal in the Church – As great as Pope Francis is as a person, that seems like the logical conclusion.
If Pope Francis does not change the ambiguous tone of his interviews, regardless of our faith in Pope Francis’ leadership, the world is going to use him as their tool.

Every article so far has tried to just show Pope Francis is Orthodox. The conclusion of these articles is nothing more than saying Vatican II is Orthodox. The problem therefore is not with teaching of Pope Francis or Vatican II but the language and wording of both.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top