Vatican II All Over Again

[Jaberwocky]

I guess then that the Regensberg address was ambiguous enough that there were riots and people died. Do I think that Benedict XV! was ambiguous? No, but evil has a way of twisting truth to lies. Francis shows no sign of changing, we need to learn how to respond.

I don’t think the problem is with learning how to respond but more of a problem in how to understand him. If each statement he makes in public requires an army of those who do Catholic Apologetics to ponder over and still be confused on somethings, then that is not a good.

The average lay Catholic today is not going to get the complicated tale that is the truth but the more simple spin of the facts that matches their current life style. As you say, Evil is always at work and ones of its methods is to keep people closed from the truth. So when they hear two views, they are more likely to pick the one that comforts them unless they really try to objectively evaluate it. Since most Catholics will not have the time or the knowledge to unpack the Holy Father’s message in an orthodox manner, they will more likely pick the wrong one that gives the thumbs up for their life style.

That is a problem that the Church already admits existed with Vatican II in its language. So this is no different. The devil is at work sowing much confusion. The Church stands more of a chance against it by shining a sharp beam of light that cuts through the darkness pointing to Christ. In other words, direct language works best.

Think about it. If the Abortion comments made the day after the interview publication were actually made during the interview, how much exposure it would receive and how much more harder it would have been to misinterpret it? You don’t hear anyone twisting the words in the condemnation on abortion. I would take a guess that its because it was direct.

So while anything can be twisted, there exists a way of saying things that leaves for minimum misinterpretation. In times like these, that is probably the best language to use.

Also, in times like these, its best to reconcile the tough things in the Church with the acceptable things to make it look as one complete whole. So God’s mercy as compatible with God’s law as the article posted by the Randy illustrates. This way you leave no room for interpretation of things in a progressive way.

 

[Jaberwocky]

You’re right, but the examples people bring up about Benedict are Regensberg and the condom quote. That’s pretty much it in eight years of being Pope. Francis has had about eight of these moments in six months.

I’m hoping that the strong pro-life things he said the day after the interview came out are a response of sorts. If so, that could indicate that he saw the media flury, didn’t like it, and was “correcting” it, in a sense. It would imply that he is becoming aware of the situatuion and is starting to address it.

At least I hope so

I like to hope that he is adjusting and that condemnation of abortion the day after was a sign of him realizing the mistake. The key difference between Vatican II and Pope Francis is that Vatican II documents are already written while Pope Francis has the future ahead of him.

He can choose to use different language and be more careful in what truths he chooses to express, how he wants to do it, and when he wants to do it. If he does that, I think he can turn things around and get back to implementing his vision for the Church. Otherwise he will get hijacked just like the Council.

 

[ProVobis]

Well, he was, of course, translated. But the official, approved English translation (which was done by a Jesuit publication) used “right-winger”.

Even if this were a perfect translation, if there is such a thing, the term is political and it has different meanings under the same government, much less across borders. In any case, I doubt if there is any theological significance.

You know that there is a problem with translations if one day you hear about too much focus on abortion and the next day you hear about abortion from the same person. So excuse me if I take all translations with a grain of salt.

 

[Elizabeth502]

THIS:

In other words, direct language works best.

 

[clem456]

So who does more damage to the body of Christ?

1000 misinformed reporters, or 10 angry Catholics who feel the need to micro-manage the Pope on the internet?

 

[LiberalPrincess]

Is this a bad thing? I consider Vatican II the best thing to happen to the Church in the past 1000 years.

 

[TimothyH]

So who does more damage to the body of Christ?

1000 misinformed reporters, or 10 angry Catholics who feel the need to micro-manage the Pope on the internet?

It is a valid question. I wonder if we are not obsessed with the Pope.

Doesn’t the pastor of our parish or our confessor have more impact on our spiritual life than the Pope? 250 years ago one could spend their whole life barely knowing who the Pope was, let alone what he said on a day to day basis about any given issue.

Yeah, everyone loves the Pope. But have we not become a bit obsessed over every nuance of every word the man utters? Isn’t all this focus on the Pope the exact opposite of his statement that the Church should be less focused on itself and more focused on proclaiming the Gospel?

-Tim-

 

[JustaServant]

Is this a bad thing? I consider Vatican II the best thing to happen to the Church in the past 1000 years.

Randy never said Vatican 2 was a bad thing.
He is referring to how liberals in the Church have interpreted Vatican 2.

 

[Elizabeth502]

So who does more damage to the body of Christ?

1000 misinformed reporters, or 10 angry Catholics who feel the need to micro-manage the Pope on the internet?

“10 angry Catholics,” LOL.

Pretty amusing take on an emotionally neutral discussion of interpretation and liberal media spin.

 

[Jaberwocky]

So who does more damage to the body of Christ?

1000 misinformed reporters, or 10 angry Catholics who feel the need to micro-manage the Pope on the internet?

Obviously its the 1000 misinformed reporters as we see from Vatican II.

The 10 angry Catholics (I hope you don’t mean us) will never be heard beyond the thread they discuss and will just become a cached page on the world wide web. They will be tuned out because of the twisted message by these reporters anyway.

And no one here wants to micro-manage the Pope. There is only an acknowledgement of the problem, and growing in our awareness of it.

You can think of it as finding what to pray for rather than pretending there isn’t a problem. Now all Catholics who read this thread can pray for an urgent awareness for Pope Francis to change his language style and be more direct and careful of misinterpretations.

If you don’t trust my answer on the reporters vs. angry Catholics, ask your friends if they know 10 angry Catholics saying what is on this thread or if they are aware of a “Progressive Pope” and his interview. The entire world knows of the interview. Not many know of this thread or what was said here.

 

[MarkInOregon]

All it seems to take is one misinterpretation/misapplication, such as Progressio Populorum or S.C., and there goes tradition. IMO.

I don’t say this in reference to you, ProVobis, or to anyone in particular but at times I get the impression that many here treat “tradition” the way many protestants treat the the Bible or more specifically the King James Bible, as if tradition fell from the sky from God fully formed and not subject to development. We recently had someone ask if, in light of tradition, they should pray the new mysteries of the Rosary–apparently failing to realize that the Rosary had not always been a part of tradition.

I was reading the canons of the Council of Nicea last night and I came accross one that made me chuckle and think that people have not changed much since then–it was regarding the practice of some of the churches to kneel in prayer and how they were to stand as the other churches did so as to have a uniform posture. I guess some debates or should I say fights never stop–one could call that a church tradition.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[edwest2]

Is this a bad thing? I consider Vatican II the best thing to happen to the Church in the past 1000 years.

Amen.

Ed

 

[TimothyH]

Is this a bad thing? I consider Vatican II the best thing to happen to the Church in the past 1000 years.

The Battle of Lepanto and the restoration of the permanent diaconate might be in the running for best thing to happen in the last 1000 years.

-Tim-

 

[Jaberwocky]

I don’t say this in reference to you, ProVobis, or to anyone in particular but at times I get the impression that many here treat “tradition” the way many protestants treat the the Bible or more specifically the King James Bible, as if tradition fell from the sky from God fully formed and not subject to development. We recently had someone ask if, in light of tradition, they should pray the new mysteries of the Rosary–apparently failing to realize that the Rosary had not always been a part of tradition.

I was reading the canons of the Council of Nicea last night and I came accross one that made me chuckle and think that people have not changed much since then–it was regarding the practice of some of the churches to kneel in prayer and how they were to stand as the other churches did so as to have a uniform posture. I guess some debates or should I say fights never stop–one could call that a church tradition.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

I think to speak of the role of tradition probably deserves a thread on its own. To put it in little words as possible, quoting Populorum Progressio

*"Moreover, traditional culture comes into conflict with the advanced techniques of modern industrialization; social structures out of tune with today’s demands are threatened with extinction. For the older generation, the rigid structures of traditional culture are the necessary mainstay of one’s personal and family life; they cannot be abandoned. The younger generation, on the other hand, regards them as useless obstacles, and rejects them to embrace new forms of societal life.

The conflict between generations leads to a tragic dilemma: either to preserve traditional beliefs and structures and reject social progress; or to embrace foreign technology and foreign culture, and reject ancestral traditions with their wealth of humanism. The sad fact is that we often see the older moral, spiritual and religious values give way without finding any place in the new scheme of things."
*

In short, traditions are the development in understanding over years in a group people on how to keep God’s law, protect the faith, practice the faith etc.

These traditions can help one advance in ones faith very rapidly. In the words of St. Paul

---

I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors."**** (Galatians 1:14)

The question on the rosary was probably motivated because the person was unaware of the development of the rosary tradition to include the Luminous mysteries by Bl. John Paul II.

That is all I wish to say on the matter of traditions because this is not a thread on that topic.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Randy never said Vatican 2 was a bad thing.
He is referring to how liberals in the Church have interpreted Vatican 2.

Exactly! I am not sure why people continue to attack this straw man after this distinction has been repeatedly made clear on this thread.

 

[ProVobis]

I think to speak of the role of tradition probably deserves a thread on its own. To put it in little words as possible, quoting Populorum Progressio

The title itself can translate into something very political.

Maybe it’s a good thing we don’t translate titles Popes assign to their letters or encyclicals.

 

[pnewton]

Obviously its the 1000 misinformed reporters as we see from Vatican II.

The wolves howling in the distance are not as deadly as the one in the fold. The worst attacks will always come from within.

 

[McCall1981]

So who does more damage to the body of Christ?

1000 misinformed reporters, or 10 angry Catholics who feel the need to micro-manage the Pope on the internet?

1,000 misinformed reporters because those 1,000 misinformed reporters create 1,000,000 misinformed Catholics.

Is this a bad thing? I consider Vatican II the best thing to happen to the Church in the past 1000 years.

Yes, it’s a bad thing. Vat II itself was great, but the problem was so many people ignoring it, making up thier own version of it, and running with it. Same thing is happening now with Fancis.

 

[pnewton]

They may make the worst decision ever like in the case of Pope Honorius.

Comparison to Pope Honorius is faulty at best, rude at worst. The papacy is not a tool of secular emperors as at times in the past. It is voted on by people some very holy people who devote themselves to prayer during the time of the voting.

 

[pnewton]

I believe that groups like NARAL hear only what they want to hear and repeat only the parts they like within Pope’s pastoral approach to sinners. I also believe that elements in the Catholic Church are going to do likewise with respect to anything the Holy Father says that about showing charity an mercy to these people. People like to cling to sin, whether it be lust or hate. The fault is not in Pope Francis, it is in us. We have both or woman caught in adultery and our Pharisees.

Pope Francis will continue to say what he needs to say, the way we need to hear it, thanks be to God.