Vatican II All Over Again

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
I wish to clarify what I said in light of what you have written above.

My response was to an article that suggested that Popes have protection from the Holy Spirit even on matters where there is no infallible protection like governance decisions. The case of Pope Honorious where he did allow a heresy to rise due to his negligence was pointed out to show that even something as grave as that can take place in governing actions of a Pope.

It was in no way meant to compare Pope Francis to Pope Honorious. I am a little appalled that you took it that way. Please read the article I commented on and the context should be more clearer. I also specifically mentioned that I was speaking in reference to the point #1 of the article.
 
The wolves howling in the distance are not as deadly as the one in the fold. The worst attacks will always come from within.
That is the wrong analogy. If you meant to apply the “one in the fold” label to us, it actually does not work. While we are in the “Catholic fold” so to speak, whatever we say or do will not go beyond a few Catholics who venture upon this thread. In this day and age, that will be “not many” because they have other things to browse on the web.

Just to give you some perspective. The Traditional Catholicism forum is listed to have 422,959 views. The non-Catholic religions forum has 1,233,130. The Water Cooler has 1,453,944 views. So the Traditional Catholicism forum has less than 1/3rd of the viewership of these other threads.

So how exactly are the “ones in the fold” going to become this deadly enemy?

The CNN, New York Times, BBC, Reuters has a much larger reach than you or me and even the Holy Father himself. These reporters can spread a message or suppress one as they please.

If you think WE are the enemy, you are sadly mistaken. Please judge the arguments for what they are before suggesting that we are enemies of the Church to point out a valid problem.
 
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?
The problem, from my perspective, is that they are essentially political labels. They don’t necessarily make it easier for us to communicate because these labels bring their own baggage with them from the political arena, and they cause people to get defensive. I am Catholic–neither liberal nor conservative but Catholic. I accept Church teaching and attempt to follow it to the best of my, albeit limited, ability. I worship it the ways permitted by the Church and I am obedient to my bishop who is in authority over me. I don’t lobby for change in areas that can’t be changed. My preferences in other areas are just that my preferences but they don’t change the fact that I am Catholic. If one were to look closely and avoid superficial labels one would find in some area’s of practice I am very conservative, in others maybe my thought is more on the liberal side but to label me one way or the other does a diservice to me and I would venture to say to a good many others. I feel ill served by both political parties and by the labels conservative and liberal. I feel rather than helping the conversation they just muddy the waters.

The peace of Christ,
Mark
 
The problem, from my perspective, is that they are essentially political labels. They don’t necessarily make it easier for us to communicate because these labels bring their own baggage with them from the political arena, and they cause people to get defensive. I am Catholic–neither liberal nor conservative but Catholic. I accept Church teaching and attempt to follow it to the best of my, albeit limited, ability. I worship it the ways permitted by the Church and I am obedient to my bishop who is in authority over me. I don’t lobby for change in areas that can’t be changed. My preferences in other areas are just that my preferences but they don’t change the fact that I am Catholic. If one were to look closely and avoid superficial labels one would find in some area’s of practice I am very conservative, in others maybe my thought is more on the liberal side but to label me one way or the other does a diservice to me and I would venture to say to a good many others. I feel ill served by both political parties and by the labels conservative and liberal. I feel rather than helping the conversation they just muddy the waters.

The peace of Christ,
Mark
You have a point. But these terms are things used to describe the political sphere and other things rather than having their origin in politics (at least that was my impression).

I think if we are having a discussion to convert someone, then its perhaps not a great idea to start off by saying “So, hey there Liberal Jane, I want to talk to you…”.

But when having a discussion among those who are already of faith, sometimes the labels are needed to make the discussion faster and efficient. This topic in that sense was one that will be had by those who are already Catholic rather than a general conversation.

With respect to the use of the word conservative, there is a bit of an issue in that true Catholicism cannot actually be classified as conservative (as it is defined in the ideological sense). But these terms tend to be generally understood to mean something very close to what we actually picture. So I think its ok to use these words for discussion among those who already understand what it means in the context of the discussion.

But to use them in general when stating the Church position to someone hostile to it, some prudence may be required.

On the subject of conservative, this is an article I read sometime back that still give me a chuckle

catholicnick.blogspot.ca/2012/06/why-do-bikinis-fit-conservative-women.html
 
You have a point. But these terms are things used to describe the political sphere and other things rather than political terms themselves.

I think if we are having a discussion to convert someone, then its perhaps not a great idea to start off by saying “So, hey there Liberal Jane, I want to talk to you…”.

But when having a discussion among those who are already of faith, sometimes the labels are needed.

With respect to the use of the word conservative, there is a bit of an issue in that true Catholicism cannot actually be classified as conservative (as it is defined in the ideological sense). But these terms tend to be generally understood to mean something very close to what we actually picture. So I think its ok to use these words for discussion among those who already understand what it means in the context of the discussion.

But to use them in general when stating the Church position to someone hostile to it, some prudence may be required.

On the subject of conservative, this is an article I read sometime back that still give me a chuckle

catholicnick.blogspot.ca/2012/06/why-do-bikinis-fit-conservative-women.html
I think we need to all strive to be orthodox Catholics. Not liberal, not conservative, but orthodox.

The reality is that an orthodox Catholic will often appear, to outsiders framing “liberal” and “conservative” in political terms, sometimes liberal, sometimes conservative.

Within the Church, we will probably end up ostracized by both those who self-refer as liberal, and those who self-refer as conservative 😛
 
I do wish people would stop blaming “the media” if/when something goes awry within the Catholic church.

Journalists report on what is happening, on what people are saying and doing and feeling, on what is in front of their eyes.
They don’t care if the Church “remakes” itself or not, they don’t put quotes in the pope’s mouth, they don’t have a vested interest in what is happening or not happening within the Catholic church…unless they are a religious publication.
Editors/reporters look to see if there is anything new said or done that day, and if so, they report on it.
The pope gave a hard-hitting interview about abortion and “the throwaway culture” days following that big, “controversial” interview last week…and this vague “media” group you speak of reported on that, too, en masse.
The media are not “accomplices” in remaking the Catholic church. And they can’t always report in ways that will make you happy.

They are reflecting a reality of what is happening with the people inside the church.
It may not be an accurate reflection of what is in the hearts and minds of many here on CAF–I think it surely is not–but it is accurate for many, many other Catholic churchgoers.


.
I have to disagree with you on the bolded.

In my opinion, the media most definitely cares whether the Church remakes itself, and they definitely have a vested interest.

The media only reports on the Church to further it’s anti-Church agenda, period. I don’t think they intend to reflect reality, and I don’t think do reflect reality. (In my opinion, of course)
 
I think we need to all strive to be orthodox Catholics. Not liberal, not conservative, but orthodox.

The reality is that an orthodox Catholic will often appear, to outsiders framing “liberal” and “conservative” in political terms, sometimes liberal, sometimes conservative.

Within the Church, we will probably end up ostracized by both those who self-refer as liberal, and those who self-refer as conservative 😛
👍
 
I do wish people would stop blaming “the media” if/when something goes awry within the Catholic church.

Journalists report on what is happening, on what people are saying and doing and feeling, on what is in front of their eyes.
They don’t care if the Church “remakes” itself or not, they don’t put quotes in the pope’s mouth, they don’t have a vested interest in what is happening or not happening within the Catholic church…unless they are a religious publication.

Editors/reporters look to see if there is anything new said or done that day, and if so, they report on it.
The pope gave a hard-hitting interview about abortion and “the throwaway culture” days following that big, “controversial” interview last week…and this vague “media” group you speak of reported on that, too, en masse.

The media are not “accomplices” in remaking the Catholic church. And they can’t always report in ways that will make you happy.

They are reflecting a reality of what is happening with the people inside the church.
It may not be an accurate reflection of what is in the hearts and minds of many here on CAF–I think it surely is not–but it is accurate for many, many other Catholic churchgoers.

.
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?"
 
I have to disagree with you on the bolded.

In my opinion, the media most definitely cares whether the Church remakes itself, and they definitely have a vested interest.

The media only reports on the Church to further it’s anti-Church agenda, period. I don’t think they intend to reflect reality, and I don’t think do reflect reality. (In my opinion, of course)
👍

The people who work in the media are the people of society. When society as a whole is hostile to everything the Church stands for apart from their request for it to offer “mercy” without repentance and accept everything as good, there is no reason to think that these hopes and agendas do not carry over to their work in the media.
 
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?"
Off topic, but Alexander Solzhenitsyn is an amazing writer.

His book “The Gulag Archipelago” which is a histroy of the gulag system under the Soviet Union is, strangely enough, one of the more spiritually inspiring books I have ever read; very powerful.
 
I think we need to all strive to be orthodox Catholics. Not liberal, not conservative, but orthodox.

The reality is that an orthodox Catholic will often appear, to outsiders framing “liberal” and “conservative” in political terms, sometimes liberal, sometimes conservative.

Within the Church, we will probably end up ostracized by both those who self-refer as liberal, and those who self-refer as conservative 😛
Yes, have to agree, “Orthodox” is probably the right term but it can sometimes be a bit difficult due to the existence of the Orthodox Church. But its probably a better label to use than Conservative.
 
Off topic, but Alexander Solzhenitsyn is an amazing writer.

His book “The Gulag Archipelago” which is a histroy of the gulag system under the Soviet Union is, strangely enough, one of the more spiritually inspiring books I have ever read; very powerful.
Definitely true! If only we gave some thought to his ideas when they were mentioned back in the day and took a look at how we order our own society more carefully. Alas, it was not to be.
 
I agree with you Mark. By labeling Catholics as anything other than Catholics, it is 100% wrong. Cafeteria Catholics, Catholics In Name Only, the list goes on. Our goal is to build up the Body of Christ on earth. Anything, or anyone, that tries to divide us is not helping us. But division is the goal of some. They want the labels to stick so that instead of understanding each other and communicating, we are fighting among ourselves. They want that very badly.

All of us are sinners, which is the basic truth. Yes, the media tells us Catholics are doing this wrong or that. Why should they care, except to divide us? Are there specific problems that need to be addressed? Yes. But the answer is not labeling. Identify the problems, one by one, and help each other. Find solutions. Even if we help a few - that’s invaluable. Hope, mercy and helping each other.

Peace,
Ed
 
Yes, have to agree, “Orthodox” is probably the right term but it can sometimes be a bit difficult due to the existence of the Orthodox Church. But its probably a better label to use than Conservative.
I suppose we can replace the word “orthodox” with faithful and make the same point.
 
I do wish people would stop blaming “the media” if/when something goes awry within the Catholic church.

Journalists report on what is happening, on what people are saying and doing and feeling, on what is in front of their eyes.
They don’t care if the Church “remakes” itself or not, they don’t put quotes in the pope’s mouth, they don’t have a vested interest in what is happening or not happening within the Catholic church…unless they are a religious publication.

Editors/reporters look to see if there is anything new said or done that day, and if so, they report on it.
The pope gave a hard-hitting interview about abortion and “the throwaway culture” days following that big, “controversial” interview last week…and this vague “media” group you speak of reported on that, too, en masse.

The media are not “accomplices” in remaking the Catholic church. And they can’t always report in ways that will make you happy.

They are reflecting a reality of what is happening with the people inside the church.
It may not be an accurate reflection of what is in the hearts and minds of many here on CAF–I think it surely is not–but it is accurate for many, many other Catholic churchgoers.

.
I agree with you. There is a tendency to blame unwanted developments on some nebulous and nefarious outside group. While that may be easier and more comfortable than addressing what is actually happening in the Church, it is not a productive way to help the Church grow and develop.
 
Every few weeks or so a thread will pop up hereabout the definition of a traditionalist. We soon get at least 57 different definitions, some favorable, some unfavorable, and some neutral, from 57 different posters including some who identify themselves as a " traditionalist" and about six pages later the only thing we agree on is that we cannot find agreement.

It strikes me that we can end up in the same place when we use the terms conservative and liberal here. Everyone has their own very clear understanding of each term when they use it, often accompanied by a very definite positive or negative connotation. The trouble is 28 others (half of the 57 with one neutral ;)) have exactly the opposite opinion.

.
 
I do wish people would stop blaming “the media” if/when something goes awry within the Catholic church.

Journalists report on what is happening, on what people are saying and doing and feeling, on what is in front of their eyes.
They don’t care if the Church “remakes” itself or not, they don’t put quotes in the pope’s mouth, they don’t have a vested interest in what is happening or not happening within the Catholic church…unless they are a religious publication.

Editors/reporters look to see if there is anything new said or done that day, and if so, they report on it.
The pope gave a hard-hitting interview about abortion and “the throwaway culture” days following that big, “controversial” interview last week…and this vague “media” group you speak of reported on that, too, en masse.

The media are not “accomplices” in remaking the Catholic church. And they can’t always report in ways that will make you happy.

They are reflecting a reality of what is happening with the people inside the church.
It may not be an accurate reflection of what is in the hearts and minds of many here on CAF–I think it surely is not–but it is accurate for many, many other Catholic churchgoers.
.
This is absolutely not the reality of our modern day media. Many newspapers etc. have an AGENDA.

After last week’s interview with the Pope, one local newspaper had a headline proclaiming “Pope, Bishop At Odds on Gays” – a deliberate distortion and “vested interest” to divide the community and nurture anti-Catholic bias in our community. It had nothing to do with “reflecting a reality of what is happening with the people inside the church.”

Much of the media are pro-abortion and pro-gay “marriage”, and intentionally misrepresents the Catholic and other churches which have a different agenda than theirs.
 
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.
Hear, hear!

:clapping:
 
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 will influence millions of misinformed readers.

You decide.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top