Vatican II and its changes

  • Thread starter Thread starter Miguel25
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Debbie_Kono said:
40.png
Xanthippe_Voorhees:
Yeah, because it wasn’t a couple of toxic trad men that refused my entrance into a TLM low Mass because I was a woman wearing pants.
Click to expand...
Are you sure it wasn’t sedevacantist? They label themselves as Traditional Roman Catholic…at least the one near my house does. And they are very strict on dress.
Click to expand...
It was a diocese controlled parish that allowed a TLM low mass because the priest agreed to say it.

Given that he also said 2 other masses, both OF over the weekend, I doubt that he was a sedevacantist at the very least.
 
I don’t see a link.

Father Hess published his findings. His talks and seminars have also been posted on Youtube…
 
I go Sspx and its the place I find respect for the Blessed Sacrament, sound doctrine and priests who want to save souls.

No one can judge them. The Pope has just given the Vanuatu mission an Apostolic blessing
 
I think it’s unlikely that the SSPX will be required to affirm Vatican II. The winds seem to have changed and those who participated in Vatican II have mostly gone. The next generation is not emotionally attached to what Vatican II represents; consequently, they will evaluate the Council with a sober mind. It is hoped that these objective assessments will focus on the fact that Vatican II was a pastoral experiment that did not change doctrine. Once this vital fact is appreciated then the need for the SSPX to give unqualified assent to pastoral policy will evaporate.

I’d also like to express my gratitude to CAF for allowing this free discussion to take place. The previous ban on SSPX discussion helped to perpetuate lies and misunderstandings. The new approach gives us the change to speak fairly and in an unbiased way.
 
Saxum said:
I’d also like to express my gratitude to CAF for allowing this free discussion to take place. The previous ban on SSPX discussion helped to perpetuate lies and misunderstandings. The new approach gives us the change to speak fairly and in an unbiased way.
Click to expand...
It is also important for posters to maintain a reasonable level of courtesy to each other, and referring to other parties. It is not just the nature of a topic that triggers intervention, but the fact that some topics in the past brought out the worse side of many of us on both sides. Lets all focus on the subject, try to bring up new information, keep open minded to learn something new we did not know before rather than just trying to Get Our Point Across. Including me, at times.
 
Walking_Home said:
From what I see – the ordinations of July 2, 2016 were at present time safe, but this does not follow Church law permissibility. The July 2, ordinations are merely tolerated and unimpeded. It looks like concession was for July 2 ordinations.–hoping that the SSPX would reflect on their situation. It goes on to say – that the criteria for the recognition of the SSPX – remains the unqualified affirmation of Vat II and all its documents.

This really does not make it clear – that Rome has given the green flag to all SSPX ordination.
Click to expand...
Tolerated and unimpeded is a good way of expressing this. The Vatican in the last 4 years is sort of recognizing realities that would exist anyway, regardless of what the Vatican does. SSPX has (unofficially) been supervising their clergy for decades. The Vatican now says, yeah, ok, that is happening. The Vatican has no way to impede anything done by the SSPX, or any other group that is actively resisting its authority. This does not mean the Vatican “accepts” more SSPX actions as much as it reflects realities that will be going on, regardless of the Church.

This is parallel to some trends to “accept” those who are in irregular marriage situations, who are perhaps going have sex with their “partner” regardless of lacking an annullment, or who will go to Communion anyway, regardless of what action or rules the Church takes. I am not necessarily in agreement with either trend. It may raise false hopes, or gloss over genuine discrepancies. Or it may be successful to tell people, in either group, “OK, you’re in full communion now. But now that the Church ceded that point, we hope you will come to see at least some of our other points.” Maybe if the Church starts following you for awhile, you will then follow the Church. (I am describing, not endorsing a trend here).

Just saying, if you happen to like the trend shown in my first paragraph above, you also have to accept the same Vatican also hinting in the parallel direction of the second paragraph, a trend that makes me uncomfortable if I described it fairly.
 
Last edited:
Please clarify. What is the difference between proselytism and evangelization? You made the statement but did not explain.
 
scsongbird said:
Please clarify. What is the difference between proselytism and evangelization? You made the statement but did not explain.
Click to expand...
Proselytism- it is forcibly imparting YOUR viewpoint onto another. This may be one of God, but in the end it’s about you, your view and how you feel others should believe.

Evangelization- it is about God speaking through your words and actions. It’s all about God’s will and how He can lead people to faith on their personal journey
 
It’s much more than “refusing to allow”.
They have to ensure that there will be sufficient people to warrant another Mass on the schedule.
Many times, it appeals to a very small number.
In our Archdiocese, there is a bunch of red tape as well. Permissions form the ArchBishop, research by his office as to the need or requests for such, and then there’s the decision to be made: if there is only one priest, does he replace the OF with the EF? How many people does that impact?
Contrary to what most pious people believe, the priest is responsible for a huge amount of debt incurred by his parish sometimes, and if they believe that bringing in any innovations will run the faithfully tithing people, they tend to say, no thanks, I’m not going to go to all the effort for 3 families.

But I do agree wholeheartedly with Walking_Home.
CAF is kind of a hothouse for traditional and more mainstream Catholics (if we can even use these labels appropriately).

Much of what is discussed regularly here is not even on the radar screen of American Catholics. Many Catholics have never HEARD of Cardinal Burke, have never read AL, never been to a Latin Mass, don’t know the difference between the EF & the OF. They mostly only know the parish of their youth or their current parish.
The parish I formerly worked at regularly used liberal amounts of hand sanitizer before the Lamb of God. I found it horrible, distracting, and really bad form. My new parish? They looked at me like I was crazy when I asked if the EMHC use hand sanitizer. HEck, they don’t even refer to them as EMHC. They refer to the laity as EOM’s or EM’s.
So yeah, what you and I tend to get all worked up about online, is not even on the table for most American Catholics. So yeah, for us who post online, the rad trads seem vocal, really stiff, and out of touch.
In our Archdiocese alone, there is ONE EF Mass, at ONE parish.
It’s not terribly well attended. But the Archbishop is happy to offer it to those who truly love the Latin Mass. I remember my pastor at the time telling a woman that he wasn’t going to make any move to change for 6 people who are interested who would likely fall off after3-4 months. As the lone priest, and having upwards of 75 people in hospital, nursing home, or homebound, he felt he was needed by those folks as a priority. We could argue with him, but pastors make these decisions. Not us.
I think the average person would have little or no idea what goes on at the parish during the week.
That’s when I get upset that someone person comes up to me after Mass and says things like “I don’t like that cantor, she sings too high”.
Really? She sings in the same key as everyone else. You can’t match pitch or register. But I can’t say that. I just smile and say, oh I’m sorry.
 
I knew I had seen it before somewhere. Here is from a footnote in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 2007 document Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (bold added).
[49] The term proselytism originated in the context of Judaism, in which the term proselyte referred to someone who, coming from the gentiles, had passed into the Chosen People. So too, in the Christian context, the term proselytism was often used as a synonym for missionary activity. More recently, however, the term has taken on a negative connotation, to mean the promotion of a religion by using means, and for motives, contrary to the spirit of the Gospel; that is, which do not safeguard the freedom and dignity of the human person. It is in this sense that the term proselytism is understood in the context of the ecumenical movement: cf. The Joint Working Group between the Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches, “The Challenge of Proselytism and the Calling to Common Witness” (1995).
Click to expand...
So, yes, in the past the term has been used synonymously with evangelization, but at present the term has a negative connotation and is used to denote what not to do with regards to spreading the faith—in contrast to authentic evangelization.

So if you’re reading an older work of theology that seems to speak of proselytism favorably, note that the author is not using the word the same way as it is used now.
 
I don’t know if this CDF document actually clears up the confusion, though. It says : “More recently, however, the term (proselytism) has taken on a negative connotation, to mean the promotion of a religion by using means, and for motives, contrary to the spirit of the Gospel; that is, which do not safeguard the freedom and dignity of the human person.” Considering that the Second Vatican Council significantly amended the traditional notion of religious freedom in the document Dignitatis Humanae, it seems that one reason “proselytism” has taken on a negative connotation is because of a shift in the teaching on religious liberty. So, returning to the main idea of the thread, it can be argued that Vatican II is indeed a reason why proselytism is no longer allowed.
 
I forgot another that I learned recently
  1. Bishops are no longer allowed to be chosen via secular influence or appointed by civil leaders.
Yes, that lasted until Vatican II 😮
 
  • I think the “state of emergency” argument is, in effect, used by those who are living in sin, and also by those who say “Give 'em all Communion”…just during this “temporary” situation of course.
  • Temporary solutions have a way of becoming permanent. Giving out “recognition” too readily, whether it be to a couple living irregular, or to a priest who is, in effect, defying his ordinary, will probably not bring either into full fidelity with the Church. It might send a misleading signal, and delay full union. There is such a thing as the Church being too “practical” or “realistic”.
  • The Vatican rightly avoids the harsh extreme, of dusting off your shoes at couples in irregular situations, rejecting. But it needs to be careful not go to the opposite extreme, and give the impression that no change is necessary. The right message is: “We love you where you are. But where you are is not the healthiest place for you to remain”.
    Same with SSPX. People keep forgetting that individuals, clergy or attached laity, are constantly leaving the SSPX and joining, as individuals or families, with the Diocese and parish. This is the option rarely mentioned on CAF posts. This option: come in when you are ready - has had partial success. The other options constantly mentioned are hypothetical. Talks have been going on for over 30 years. Who knows? Why is there such preoccupation with the hypothetical, and no mention of the current, ongoing partial success option?
 
Last edited:
WHOA WHOA WHOA.

Stop right there, Troll.

Anyone who uses “retarded” as a pejorative should be ashamed of himself. Seriously. Even a child knows better than that, unless he’s born with no sense of decency.
I’ll be charitable and assume you’re about 6 years old.
 
Today i been called radical by my jesuit priest. Just because i said that pagan religions worship demons, paul teaches us that about idols. Well, he called me radical when i said that we may have to preach to muslim ppl with much respect and love but proclaim the good news.

I just came to think that is not just a theory that karl marx has entered into the church and affected a lot of clergy.
 
It’s interesting and perhaps not coincidental that a lot of the controversial threads eventually lead to an accusation that Pope Francis is a commie.

Perhaps also not coincidentally, alt-right nationalists have a champion in Steve Bannon, who has friends in Rome.

Just sayin’.
 
Wait…there’s still Catholics in France???
Then why all the press about empty churches except for the millions of tourists?
 
Here is an interview (07/15/2017) with Card. Burke – concerning the SSPX.

As per Card. Burke:

– fact of the matter – SSPX is in schism
– not legitimate to attend/receive the sacraments at the SSPX
– SSPX sacraments — not licit
– not a good sign to receive sacraments from SSPX – does not help the SSPX to reconcile
– its a counter sign to the communion of the Church.

The interview is in the link below:
https://soundcloud.com/louieverrecchio%2Fcardinal-burke-on-fsspx-7-15-2017
Click to expand...
 
You accurately describe the situation in most of the US, and also offer helpful insights into a situation I know little about. My ideas and suggestions have little application in Europe. I would like to learn more about that situation. (The good thing about the Catholic Church is that it encompasses different countries, different cultures. We can learn from our own experience, but also from experiences of others who we trust, and have different experiences.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top