Vatican II All Over Again

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
McCall1981 said:
Pope Francis uses labels like “Gnostics”, “Pelagians”, “Triumphalists”, etc, to describe segments of the Cathollic population or streams of Catholic thought.

Why can’t we use “liberals” and “conservatives”.
Click to expand...
Yea, seems pretty petty if you ask me and a total misrepresentation of Pope Francis’s message.
 
Jaberwocky said:
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.
Click to expand...
👍

You summed it up very well.
 
McCall1981 said:
Pope Francis uses labels like “Gnostics”, “Pelagians”, “Triumphalists”, etc, to describe segments of the Cathollic population or streams of Catholic thought.

Why can’t we use “liberals” and “conservatives”.
Click to expand...
Because people throw them around like hand grenades.

The OP used the word “liberals” along with “willing accomplices”, “reign them in” and “hijacked.”

This wasn’t an offhand comment or a name to identify a particular group of people. Is it really so difficult to see how insulting and offensive that type of language is?

-Tim-
 
TimothyH said:
Because people throw them around like hand grenades.

The OP used the word “liberals” along with “willing accomplices”, “reign them in” and “hijacked.”

Is it really so difficult to see how insulting and offensive that type of language is?

-Tim-
Click to expand...
Pope Francis:
“My authoritarian and quick manner of making decisions led me to have serious problems and to be accused of being ultraconservative. I lived a time of great interior crisis when I was in Cordova. To be sure, I have never been like Blessed Imelda [a goody-goody], but I have never been a right-winger. It was my authoritarian way of making decisions that created problems."

Pope Francis used the phrase “right-winger” along with “authoritarian”, “ultraconservative” and “serious problems”.

How is that any different?
 
McCall1981 said:
Pope Francis:
“My authoritarian and quick manner of making decisions led me to have serious problems and to be accused of being ultraconservative. I lived a time of great interior crisis when I was in Cordova. To be sure, I have never been like Blessed Imelda [a goody-goody], but I have never been a right-winger. It was my authoritarian way of making decisions that created problems."

Pope Francis used the phrase “right-winger” along with “authoritarian”, “ultraconservative” and “serious problems”.

How is that any different?
Click to expand...
Maybe because he was talking about himself, not about others?

:twocents:
 
OraLabora said:
Umm, yes, the word “liberals” did appear:

My bold.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected. I was focused on the word “conservatives” because I KNEW I had not used that word when I double-checked. I skimmed too quickly.

Please accept my apologies.
 
agnes_therese said:
Maybe because he was talking about himself, not about others?

:twocents:
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, but I could say “I was never a left-winger”, or “I was never a liberal” and I would be talking about myself, but I’m still using that same label to denote a certain group of people.
 
The headliner story from Catholic Answers today is:

An Opportunity Missed
by Todd Aglialoro, Catholic Answers Press Editor
catholic.com/blog/todd-aglialoro/an-opportunity-missed

‘[Francis’ use of] this kind of language is also prone to being taken by some as a confirmation that—aha, we knew it!—all those faithful preachers and pastors, the NFP teachers and sidewalk counselors, the heroic family witnesses to Catholic moral teaching, have all this time been just a little out of whack in their law-obsession."
 
McCall1981 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think the thing people miss is the fact that here, Vatican II is often referred to as the reason for this or that, or it somehow aided this or that. Did Vatican II encourage using illegal drugs, cohabitation, the opening of porn bookstores, strip clubs, topless bars, or abortion? In a 5 year plan which ran from 1968 to 1973, we got all that. The average Catholic was told those things were wrong but people suddenly had access not just to Playboy, which was the worst you could legally do in 1968, and it only had some photos of nude or partially nude women, but to graphic, gynecological porn.

What? Today they are contacting the media and saying, “Please misquote me.”? OR “Whenever you write about Pope Francis, make sure to find a way to make him sound like he’s changing something - that he’s a liberal.”?

We could try to sue the media for libel or slander. Social upheaval reflects on Vatican II how? Just because outsiders who hated the Church used it as an EXCUSE or SCAPEGOAT now does not mean “Vatican II made me do it.”

Peace,
ED
 
agnes_therese said:
And I’ll bet they wish they hadn’t done that, after his remarks on abortion the very next day. 😃
Click to expand...
Actually they won’t because it does not matter. I was talking to some friends and what they were all saying was that they are pretty happy that Pope Francis is progressive. They kept saying he is a very different Pope in that way etc.

I mentioned the Abortion statements and no one knew them. Everyone knew the interview though. I will bet you that is the case with the majority.

So this is just Vatican II again. Everyone knows the wrong view but no one (or very few) knows the right one. With Vatican II, some of it is still the case that people don’t know how to interpret it correctly. So imagine how this is going to turn out.

I understand optimism but you have to see the data around you. We have done this experiment once with Vatican II. It did not end well and the ambiguous language undermined the Council itself. Took us 50 years to at least get back on track (somewhat).

So it is more likely that Pope Francis’s ambiguous language will be used to undermine his own good intentions. That is a sad fact that we shouldn’t just suppress.
 
agnes_therese said:
Maybe because he was talking about himself, not about others?

:twocents:
Click to expand...
Nor was he looking down his nose at other people with an attitude those who don’t agree with him on everything are enemies of God and need to be controlled by those who know better.

-Tim-
 
edwest2 said:
I think the thing people miss is the fact that here, Vatican II is often referred to as the reason for this or that, or it somehow aided this or that. Did Vatican II encourage using illegal drugs, cohabitation, the opening of porn bookstores, strip clubs, topless bars, or abortion? In a 5 year plan which ran from 1968 to 1973, we got all that. The average Catholic was told those things were wrong but people suddenly had access not just to Playboy, which was the worst you could legally do in 1968, and it only had some photos of nude or partially nude women, but to graphic, gynecological porn.

What? Today they are contacting the media and saying, “Please misquote me.”? OR “Whenever you write about Pope Francis, make sure to find a way to make him sound like he’s changing something - that he’s a liberal.”?

We could try to sue the media for libel or slander. Social upheaval reflects on Vatican II how? Just because outsiders who hated the Church used it as an EXCUSE or SCAPEGOAT now does not mean "Vatican II made me do it."

Peace,
ED
Click to expand...
I’m saying Vat II got taken advantage of by the social revolution. The problem was in the social revolution, not in Vat II. That’s why I think the timing of Vat II was unfortunate.
 
McCall1981 said:
Well, yeah, but I could say “I was never a left-winger”, or “I was never a liberal” and I would be talking about myself, but I’m still using that same label to denote a certain group of people.
Click to expand...
Hahaha, yea, I just can’t believe some people actually think there is something wrong with the labels.

The labels are to make it easier for us to communicate. Otherwise we will have to type “You know the group of people who always misinterpret it to promote teachings contrary to the Church? So these people…”

Instead of typing that over and over again, we coined a term called “Liberals” which is generally understood by all to mean something. We use these terms to communicate ideas efficiently. If we were just writing things out in full detail every-single time, nothing much will get communicated but we will have pretty long replies.

What is next? Don’t use the label Catholic?
 
TimothyH said:
Nor was he looking down his nose at other people with an attitude those who don’t agree with him on everything are enemies of God and need to be controlled by those who know better.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
So how exactly do you read the connotation in the phrases “right-winger”, “authoritarian”, “ultraconservative”, “serious problems”?

Or, for that matter, "“Gnostic”, “Pelagian”, “Triumphalist”, “Restorationist”, etc?

How are these not “looking down his nose”, etc?

For the record, I don’t have a big problem with him using these phrases, but if he can say those, surely we can say “liberal” and “conservative”.

I’m assuming for instance that you would not approve of someone using the phrase “left-winger”, since it is, if anything, more pejorative than “liberal”. But Francis used “right-winger” instead of “conservative”. If anything, “right-winger” is more pejorative than “conservative”. (Of course, he was translated, so we don;t know the exact connotation of what he said, but you get my point)
 
Randy_Carson said:
The headliner story from Catholic Answers today is:

An Opportunity Missed
by Todd Aglialoro, Catholic Answers Press Editor
catholic.com/blog/todd-aglialoro/an-opportunity-missed

‘[Francis’ use of] this kind of language is also prone to being taken by some as a confirmation that—aha, we knew it!—all those faithful preachers and pastors, the NFP teachers and sidewalk counselors, the heroic family witnesses to Catholic moral teaching, have all this time been just a little out of whack in their law-obsession."
Click to expand...
I think that article captures my exact feelings down in to a coherent thought and words.

That is exactly what happened. The entire interview reads as if there is a great tension between God’s Love, Mercy and Forgiveness and Moral Law, Doctrine, and Dogma. That is unfortunate.

Unless someone is very well catechized and very well read, its very hard to even unpack that interview in a completely Orthodox way without stepping on a mine and being blown away to error. That is probably why even faithful Catholics had problems understanding it.

Considering the interview is not an encyclical and something to be read broadly and generally, that is asking for too much.

Definitely have to agree that an opportunity was missed to explain why God’s Love, Mercy, and Forgiveness and even his Will is revealed through the Moral Law, Doctrine and Dogma taught by the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top