P
pnewton
Guest
Think what you will. I have been here for almost five years as opposed to your two months. There are some games I choose not to play. (again).
Did you have anything on topic or are you just stirring the waters?
- Status
Did you have anything on topic or are you just stirring the waters?
Y
Yours_Truly
Guest
I actually do attend an SSPX Church some times, just not exclusively.
O
Ottaviani
Guest
I see no water stirring. But I do see an uncharitable comparison. What does it matter how long someone has posted here?
I was speaking with a dear friend about posting on this forum, reasoning that if something gets through, to just one person who’s confused by this modern mess (and losing their faith as a result) all the flak would be worth it. I was brought to tradition in this way, and if I hadn’t of been, I’m afraid I would have fell into faithlessness. is it really that hard to understand why so many people leave the Church when their fed the relativistic nonsense so prevalent in Novus Ordo parishes? wouldn’t you want to stop that?
If you’re here longer than Yours Truly, or me for that matter, we’ll see. You’ll always have that as a feather in your cap if so.
P
pnewton
Guest
I somtimes wonder how much our differences are like the blind men trying to describe an elephant. Places like CAF, EWTN and my own parish don’t lend themselves to much modernism. I don’t pay much attention to what the media presents, especially about the Church, so I don’t hear much of the wacky stuff, escept here.
P
pnewton
Guest
You missed the piont, and for that I need to clarify. He was trying to engage me in some hypothetical situation and get me to commit to an answer. All I meant was that I have fallen for that before. I’ll admit to being somewhat gullible. He said I won’t answer. RIght. This time. I just mean that I have learned a few things. No feather in my cap, but it is amazing how often the same points get repeated and chose not to play the game. That is all.
If it was not a game, then he was always free to clarify the scenario with specifics of this supposed heretical contradiction. Then I could post, or not post on the topic depending on whether of not I knew enough to contribute. My statement about stirring the waters was not uncharitable. Twice I asked about the connection to Vatican II with no answer. When any poster turns the subject of a thread to that of another poster and avoids the topic, it will usually mean the thread will be shut down soon.
Whateve the coup de grace was going to be, I was not going to agree because, as I pointed out in my first answer, I do not equate Liberalism with the heresy of Modernism, nor does the Catholic Church. An error in the begining is an error indeed.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I haven’t read all the posts, so maybe I shouldn’t say anything for fear it might be redundant. However, I will anyway.
I actually don’t know what was in Pope John’s mind when he called for the council. If I think about the pre-VII Catholic world of my youth, it’s hard for me to see a whole lot wrong with it. My wife, who was raised in a much more Catholic urban environment than I was, tells me of a scenario that seems almost perfect.
But I don’t know that the council was called for the benefit of American Catholics. I’m not sure how much America even figured in the decision, notwithstanding that we think it must have been so.
My impression is that the Church in Europe might have already been in a crisis of faith. There sure were a lot of nasty “isms” in the early 20th Century there, and in the early sixties, even some Nazis and Fascists were still relatively young. Communists were everywhere and had not yet become disillusioned. Sartre and Camus were still alive.
I can’t say that VII made it all worse or better there. But I would say that the Pope would have known the mind of Europe better than we would have over here.
Hard to know what he was thinking about the Third World. Most definitely Africa and Asia have seen a lot of converts since VII. Can we really be sure that liturgical changes played no part in that? Might Pope John have (gulp) been as concerned about their souls as he might have been with ours?
But I also think the council was “hijacked” to a large extent by people who wanted radical changes in the Church. But if the Council was responsible for later abuses, where did the hijackers come from? The Council didn’t make them that way. They made the interpretation of the council that way. Was there a rot going on that we in the pews couldn’t quite see at the time?
I will always suspect so. I was in college when VII happened. But even before it happened, I was astounded at the “innovative” notions a lot of the urban students had; notions that they had gotten in their Catholic high schools. (I went to a public high school, so I was “stunted” I guess) They made me very uneasy. Then when VII came along, they all seemed to think of their “innovative” ways and patterns of thought as being “vindicated”, though I didn’t see any vindication in VII myself.
I remember that some priests absolutely went over the edge. Some were laicized. Some turned radical and bizarre. And it happened almost instantly. Some other priests resisted, and protested that, no, VII didn’t stand for any of the weird stuff people were saying it did.
So, again, was even the Church in the U.S. about to go (in part) in a strange direction before VII? I don’t know. But looking back at it, it almost seems so, as it did to me at the time.
I will add that where I live, we sure have a lot of converts from Protestantism; largely Evangelical and Fundamentalist sects. That has all been in the last couple of decades. Did the Mass in vernacular (it’s respectful here) have anything to do with it?
I don’t know. Might have.
I actually don’t know what was in Pope John’s mind when he called for the council. If I think about the pre-VII Catholic world of my youth, it’s hard for me to see a whole lot wrong with it. My wife, who was raised in a much more Catholic urban environment than I was, tells me of a scenario that seems almost perfect.
But I don’t know that the council was called for the benefit of American Catholics. I’m not sure how much America even figured in the decision, notwithstanding that we think it must have been so.
My impression is that the Church in Europe might have already been in a crisis of faith. There sure were a lot of nasty “isms” in the early 20th Century there, and in the early sixties, even some Nazis and Fascists were still relatively young. Communists were everywhere and had not yet become disillusioned. Sartre and Camus were still alive.
I can’t say that VII made it all worse or better there. But I would say that the Pope would have known the mind of Europe better than we would have over here.
Hard to know what he was thinking about the Third World. Most definitely Africa and Asia have seen a lot of converts since VII. Can we really be sure that liturgical changes played no part in that? Might Pope John have (gulp) been as concerned about their souls as he might have been with ours?
But I also think the council was “hijacked” to a large extent by people who wanted radical changes in the Church. But if the Council was responsible for later abuses, where did the hijackers come from? The Council didn’t make them that way. They made the interpretation of the council that way. Was there a rot going on that we in the pews couldn’t quite see at the time?
I will always suspect so. I was in college when VII happened. But even before it happened, I was astounded at the “innovative” notions a lot of the urban students had; notions that they had gotten in their Catholic high schools. (I went to a public high school, so I was “stunted” I guess) They made me very uneasy. Then when VII came along, they all seemed to think of their “innovative” ways and patterns of thought as being “vindicated”, though I didn’t see any vindication in VII myself.
I remember that some priests absolutely went over the edge. Some were laicized. Some turned radical and bizarre. And it happened almost instantly. Some other priests resisted, and protested that, no, VII didn’t stand for any of the weird stuff people were saying it did.
So, again, was even the Church in the U.S. about to go (in part) in a strange direction before VII? I don’t know. But looking back at it, it almost seems so, as it did to me at the time.
I will add that where I live, we sure have a lot of converts from Protestantism; largely Evangelical and Fundamentalist sects. That has all been in the last couple of decades. Did the Mass in vernacular (it’s respectful here) have anything to do with it?
I don’t know. Might have.
J
joe370
Guest
Vatican ll, was a continuation of Vatican I, under Pope John XXIII; the council developed into an engine of modernisation.Pope John XIII felt the time had come to open the windows of the Church, metaphorically speaking, and to restate the ancient truths of the Church in a more contemporary language; essentially, she was attempting to adapt to the changing tides of society, without changing her core tenets/truths!!! The general sessions of the Council were held in the autumns of four successive years (in four periods) 1962 through 1965.
It was tasked with making the historical teachings of the Church clear to a modern world, and made pronouncements on topics including the nature of the church, the mission of the laity and religious freedom. The council approved a revision of the liturgy and permitted the Latin liturgical rites to use vernacular languages as well as Latin during mass and other sacraments. Efforts by the Church to improve Christian unity became a priority. In addition to finding common ground on certain issues with Protestant churches, the Catholic Church has discussed the possibility of unity with the Eastern Orthodox Church; very positive stuff!!!
Essentially, the C.C. was revamping, reforming and revitalizing her disposition, all, in the name of ecumenism!
N
ncjohn
Guest
I don’t blalme pnewton at all for refusing to answer your hypothetical question as it is nothing more than a call to pit the Church against itself.
I agree totally with pnewton that while modernism and liberalism share some characteristics they are not the same thing and that the beginning premise is faulty, thereby making any subsequent supposition equally faulty.
The bigger problem though is that Liberalism itself is a condemned heresy. In asking what one would do if the Pope came out and said that what is condemned as heresy is now the official teaching of the Church, one is stating that the Pope would be admitting to being a heretic, and is therefore not really the Pope. While sedevacantists do in fact claim this, I’m surprised to hear someone who supports the SSPX suggest such a thing since I have not heard the Society take any such position. However much they might believe that there are modernists and liberals behind every tree, and that the Church is being misled in many cases, I have not heard them claim the Pope to be teaching heresy.
That leads to one of two conclusions in your proposal, IF the Pope was to say such a thing: 1) the sedevacantists are right and there is no current Pope, or 2) what the Church taught in the past was not really true. Since we cannot accept either premise, there is no real answer to your question under which one is still in communion with the Church.
One walks a very fine line between obedience to the Church and a prudential judgment that the Church is teaching error and must be opposed. We are told clearly the Gospel that we are to be obedient to our leaders. We are told by the Church that She is infallible in matters of faith. To oppose those commands we had better be very sure that we know something that everyone else doesn’t know as the consequences of opposing God’s Church if she is right are very high. I for one don’t want to be on the side of telling God that I opposed His Church because someone on a website told me She was wrong. If the Church is right, I would be in opposition to God’s command in assuming Her to be wrong. If She is wrong, I still can at least ask for mercy for doing my best to follow what He told me to do.
Athanasius did in fact take heroic action in the circumstances of the time, and I have to assume that he did so under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps the Society is today’s Athanasius as it styles itself to be, but my faith doesn’t find that to be the case. The fact that the Society thinks there are interpretations being made by some that may seem to be in contradiction to previous teaching doesn’t translate to the Pope being a heretic or there being actual contradictions. Even Lefebvre signed off on the documents and only had problems with what he saw as faulty interpretations.
Since I do not find the contradictions that some do and have no problem accepting the Church’s statements that they do not exist from the study I have done, I’ll continue to pray that God enlighten my path and that He bring all of us to a fuller understanding of His Truth and a willingness to act on it.
Peace,
A
adstrinity
Guest
Thank you so much for your entire post!!
M
marywel
Guest
Hi … I read the first page of threads and skimmed the last … I didn’t see this mentioned but it has to do with Vatican II … very short read small paperback, true story … synopsis here: starkvisions.com/again/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2
food for thought
food for thought
I
I_Believe
Guest
Thank you.
D
Dicerning
Guest
I urge you to step out of your bubble. I come from a state where there has NEVER been Catholic Neighborhoods…Almost everyone was and still is a Farmer. We called them Catholic Farming towns…We are still here and things changed for us too.
S
Seamus_L
Guest
A big reason the neighborhoods died, was that the heavy focus on life evolving around the parish, ended around the time of V2.
E
eyeofliberty
Guest
George Weigel sees Vatican II as ending the “Babylonian Captivity of the Church”.
youtube.com/watch?v=RANV4DBYDUY&feature=channel_page
I have always loved George Weigel on the World Over, but these comments by Weigel scare the heck out of me. Any one else think so too?
youtube.com/watch?v=RANV4DBYDUY&feature=channel_page
I have always loved George Weigel on the World Over, but these comments by Weigel scare the heck out of me. Any one else think so too?
P
pnewton
Guest
Not at all. I think he explained well the Church’s stance on religious liberty. The greatest corruption of the papacy came out of marriage between political and religious power.
To look at it another way, would anyone here like the election of President Obama to have an influence on out theology?
Y
Yours_Truly
Guest
PNewton,
Religious liberty is a formally condemned error (see #15 in the Syllabus of Pius IX). And it is also a formally condemned error to believe that the State should be separated from the Church. The union of the two is compared to the union of the body and soul, the separation of which brings death.
If you want to avoid heresy you should be reading the anti-Liberal encycicals of the past. It is the only way to escape these errors. They are too subtle to discern on our own, and we are absolutely surrounded by them. They are the very air we breath.
I don’t want to see you go to hell, which is why I am recommending the old anti-Liberal encycicals. I would begin with Libertas of Pope Leo XIII.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Correction: WAS a formally condemned error, in the 19th century. Please check the Catechism and the teachings of Vatican II.
Ditto. See above.
No, you should be reading Church teaching like the Catechism, documents of Vatican II, papal teaching of the 20th and 21st centuries, and so on.
Cheers
P
pnewton
Guest
I am weary of the hypocricy I receive from from traditionalist, not from you in particular, but let me draw the whole picture of the message of dissenting traditionalists. I am told on one hand not to engage in papolatry, being constantly reminded that not everything the Holy Father says infallible, as if I need to know that. I am told to listen to the Church and not “Churchmen”, whatever that distinction may be. I am told that Vatican II is pastoral and not infallible.
Then on the other hand, I am always being presented with infallible encyclicals from the past, statements from Church Councils from the past all of which is infallible, along with anything that ever came from a previous Pope.
Sheer hypocricy!
If I go to Hell it will be for some sin I do not yet foresee. It will not be for arrogant presumption of thinking I understand better the Tradition of the Church than the Holy Father, the one chosen by the Holy Spirit to lead His bride into heaven. It will not be for rejection of Holy Catholic Church because I disagree with something based on me leaning on my own understanding.
BTW - I have read that particular encyclical and it is by no means contradicted by as separation of Church in state. It clearly describes the idea of religious liberty flowing from a denial of God. It is aimed at the humanist philosphy of the day. Indeed, this very humanist philosophy that makes people here think that each Catholic is a interpreter of Tradition in their own right and they have the right and responsibility to defy the authority of the Catholic Church.
Y
Yours_Truly
Guest
Just so you know, I do have faults I have to deal with but hypocracy isn’t one of them.
I can understand why that might confuse you. Here’s the solution to the confusion. One of the teachings (that prior to Vatican II) is in perfect accord with the teachings and practice of the Church from the beginning. The teachings that contradicted the constant teaching and practice of the Church emerged at the end of the 18th century, and were condemned over and over again by the Church. These condemnations began at least in 1832 by Pope Gregory XVI (Mirari Vos), through the 19th and middle of the 20th centuries. These condemnations were very specific and, at least with the encyclical Libertas, provided the principles that expose these errors.
Then came Vatican II and all of its ambiguities. These ambiguities were the bases upon which the promoters of these errors brought them into the Church. Even though Vatican II can usually be “interpreted” in accord with the anti-Liberal encyclicals of the past, the reality is that virtually no one does.
Without getting too off-base, let me just say that one of the teachings is in accord with what the Church has always taugth and the other is not only contrary to it, but has been formally condemned by the Church. In short, the difference is that one is “Traditional” and the other is a formally condemned novelty.
But if you accept as true a formally condemned error (with full knowledge of said error) it makes you a heretic; and a heretic cannot go to heaven since heresy destroys the supernatural virtue of faith; and without faith, we cannot have sanctifying grace in the soul. Faith - which heresy destroys - is the foundation of the supernatural life.
Libertas: "There are others, somewhat more moderate [in their Liberalism] though not more consistent [in their thinking], who affirm that the morality of individuals is to be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the State, for that in public affairs the commands of God may be passed over, and may be entirely disregarded in the framing of laws. Hence follows the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State. But the absurdity of such a position is manifest. Nature herself proclaims the necessity of the State providing means and opportunities whereby the community may be enabled to live properly, that is to say, according to the laws of God. For, since God is the source of all goodness and justice, it is absolutely ridiculous that the State should pay no attention to these laws or render them abortive by contrary enactments. Besides, those who are in authority owe it to the commonwealth not only to provide for its external well-being and the conveniences of life, but still more to consult the welfare of men’s souls in the wisdom of their legislation. But, for the increase of such benefits, nothing more suitable can be conceived than the laws which have God for their author; and, therefore, they who in their government of the State take no account of these laws abuse political power by causing it to deviate from its proper end and from what nature itself prescribes. … This harmony [between Church and State] has been not inaptly compared to that which exists between the body and the soul for the well-being of both one and the other, the separation of which brings irremediable harm to the body, since it extinguishes its very life.
continue…
Y
Yours_Truly
Guest
continuation
While it is true that no one should be forced to convert to the true religion, it is likewise true that no one has the “right” to adhere to error. Why? Because our rights proceed from God, and God gives no one the right to violate the first commandment, which itself forbids false worship and/or heresy. Therefore, while it may certainly be best for the State to tolerate false forms of worship, it can never be said that people have a “right” to adhere to them. Thus, the Pope condemned the false notion of religious liberty, according to which each “man is free to profess any religion, or none”.
Libertas: "To make this more evident, the growth of liberty ascribed to our age must be considered apart in its various details. And, first, let us examine that liberty in individuals which is so opposed to the virtue of religion, namely, the liberty of worship, as it is called. This is based on the principle that every man is free to profess as he may choose any religion or none.
No, it is aimed at the* liberal* philosophy of the day which claims that “each man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true” (CONDEMNED ERROR, Syllabus, #15).
While it is true that no one should be forced to convert to the true religion, it is likewise true that no one has the “right” to adhere to error. Why? Because our rights proceed from God, and God gives no one the right to violate the first commandment, which itself forbids false worship and/or heresy. Therefore, while it may certainly be best for the State to tolerate false forms of worship, it can never be said that people have a “right” to adhere to them. Thus, the Pope condemned the false notion of religious liberty, according to which each “man is free to profess any religion, or none”.
Libertas: "To make this more evident, the growth of liberty ascribed to our age must be considered apart in its various details. And, first, let us examine that liberty in individuals which is so opposed to the virtue of religion, namely, the liberty of worship, as it is called. This is based on the principle that every man is free to profess as he may choose any religion or none.
- **But, assuredly, of all the duties which man has to fulfill, that, without doubt, is the chiefest and holiest which commands him to worship God with devotion and piety. **This follows of necessity from the truth that we are ever in the power of God, are ever guided by His will and providence, and, having come forth from Him, must return to Him. Add to which, no true virtue can exist without religion, for moral virtue is concerned with those things which lead to God as man’s supreme and ultimate good; and therefore religion, which (as St. Thomas says) “performs those actions which are directly and immediately ordained for the divine honor,”[7] rules and tempers all virtues. And if it be asked which of the many conflicting religions it is necessary to adopt, reason and the natural law unhesitatingly tell us to practice that one which God enjoins, and which men can easily recognize by certain exterior notes, whereby Divine Providence has willed that it should be distinguished, because, in a matter of such moment, the most terrible loss would be the consequence of error. Wherefore, when a liberty [religious liberty] such as We have described is offered to man, the power is given him to pervert or abandon with impunity the most sacred of duties, and to exchange the unchangeable good for evil; which, as We have said, is no liberty, but its degradation, and the abject submission of the soul to sin."
- But, to judge aright, we must acknowledge that, the more a State is driven to tolerate evil, the further is it from perfection; and that the tolerance of evil which is dictated by political prudence should be strictly confined to the limits which its justifying cause, the public welfare, requires. Wherefore, if such tolerance would be injurious to the public welfare, and entail greater evils on the State, it would not be lawful; for in such case the motive of good is wanting. And although in the extraordinary condition of these times the Church usually acquiesces in certain modern liberties, not because she prefers them in themselves, but because she judges it expedient to permit them, she would in happier times exercise her own liberty; and, by persuasion, exhortation, and entreaty would endeavor, as she is bound, to fulfill the duty assigned to her by God of providing for the eternal salvation of mankind. One thing, however, remains always true – that the liberty which is claimed for all to do all things is not, as We have often said, of itself desirable, inasmuch as it is contrary to reason that error and truth should have equal rights.
- Status