Vatican II heresy?

[Brendan_64]

I don’t think that’s a realistic assessment of what VC2 was. Redesigning the liturgy of the Mass was not a “disciplinary” change

Introducing a new form of the rite of the Mass is a disciplinary change (unless it also encompasses new doctrinal teachings). A extremely important disciplinary change, but still a disciplinary change.

And the Old Mass is still valid, licit and and regularly celebrated, so the Mass wasn’t redesigned, but rather a new form of the rite was introduced. And this did not happen at Vatican II, Paul VI introduced the new form of the Mass in 1969, four years after the 2nd Vatican Council closed (although Sacrosanctum Concilium did lay the groundwork for this).

 

[adamhovey1988]

Get the

 

[Sophie111]

OK now I understand where you are coming from.
You were concerned by my phrase

“Good luck if anyone is still listening by the time you finish ”

If I had meant this mildly ambiguous expression in a bad way I would not have included the winking smiley. I am sorry if you took offense all the same.

 

[Fauken]

Jorge Bergoglio

You’re on a Catholic forum. Whether you like him or not, please refer to His Holiness properly.

 

[EamonnMichael]

… that’s your biggest issue with the reply?

Not the Pope stating without the slightest hesitation that the one true church is not actually the one true church, and that any such religions are its equal?

Or that he kissed the hands of men who have stocks and shares in weapon manufacturers, whose religion denounces Christ as Lord and saviour?

Priorities.

 

[Fauken]

… that’s your biggest issue with the reply?

Not the Pope stating without the slightest hesitation that the one true church is not actually the one true church, and that any such religions are its equal?

I didn’t say that was my biggest issue with the reply. I have nothing to say about unsubstantiated claims of what the Pope may or may not have said.

What’s certainly clear is that your mind is already made up on what you think about him. You’re not the first person I’ve seen to use such language. To be frank, I don’t think we have anything to discuss if all you want to do is bad mouth the Pope. But if you’d like to actually have a discussion, it helps if you speak of the subject in question respectfully. That means using his titles.

 

[semper_catholicus]

Agreed. Even Antipopes are given the respect of being called by their ‘papal’ name.

 

[Fauken]

“We are all children of God, all, even the unbaptized ones, yes, even those who believe in other religions, or those who have idols.”

I guess the invincibly ignorant then are just damned then? Can they not call God their Father?

 

[angel12]

To quote him via various outlets:
“We are all children of God, all, even the unbaptized ones, yes, even those who believe in other religions, or those who have idols.”

You’re saying they aren’t children of God?

 

[dochawk]

Though it now seems to me the primary reason why RCC is not a different Church from the Marionite Church is simply because we share the same governing body full stop.

But your assumption is inccorrect.

Like many of the other Eastern Catholic Churches, the Maronites are self governing, while acknowledging certain authority of the Bishop of Rome.

The Maronites are at one extreme on this, while the Melkites are at the other, and both are in full Communion with Rome.

“If the RCC is but one rite of many that make up the Catholic Church then it would seem that “The Catholic Church” and the “Roman Catholic Church” are not the same thing at all.”

That is correct. The two phrases have different meanings.

The RCC is part of the CC, and its head is the leader of the entire CC.

hawk

 

[dochawk]

To quote him via various outlets:
“We are all children of God, all, even the unbaptized ones, yes, even those who believe in other religions, or those who have idols.”

You’re not seriously claiming that the notion that some humans are not God’s children is consistent with Catholic theology, are you?

hawk

 

[Dovekin]

This is a much too long brief discourse on ecclesiology that might help with your questions. Or not.

A church is a group of people gathered in the Lord’s name to worship and pray. Wherever 2 or more are gathered, the Lord is in their midst. Churches are united with each other through their union with Christ and by their sharing some common characteristics.

Once you begin bringing people and churches together, institutional frameworks facilitate commonalities. The churches in a specific area are called Particular churches, and reflect the institutional role of the bishop that brings them together.

All churches, united in Christ, form the One Holy Catholic Church. The Papacy gives an institutional element that brings these people together, rooted in the apostolic dimension of the One Church.

While most christians believe in the One Church mentiined in the creed, Catholics are the only ones who identify their united churches as the One Church. Our institutions are meant to serve the union of all christians with Christ, a somewhat larger mission than others claim.

The Orthodox are organized at a level above the Particular churches, with the Patriarch uniting a larger grouping with a national identity. These are seen as being part of the One Church for a nation/ethnic group. The Ecumenical Patriarch in Istanbul is not seen as an institution for the One Church, but as “first among equals” among all the Patriarchs.

Anglicans do not see the collection of their Particular churches as the One Church either. Together, they are, and are called, the Anglican Communion of Churches.

 

[esieffe]

The real issue I think is how VII was implemented. I have heard for example that Pope Paul never wanted communion in the hand to become the norm. VII is not Hersey. Mother church’s problems have been made worse by modernism, and bad judgement by human beings.

I have no problems with NO or EF. God is in both.

 

[Mi_Rose]

The bishops who voted on the documents of Vatican II went home and implemented those documents in their dioceses.

 

[EamonnMichael]

I’m saying you might want to read the thread for context on the point I was making that, to this Pope, it appears being a Catholic doesn’t matter.

 

[tweedlealice]

No, it’s not a heresy. The doors were open to the Holy Spirit & He came in. There is evil in the church & in all areas. Men twist the good of God into a sin.
But, there are those, who feel the freedom from Vat II, needs to be harnessed. Congregations got smaller. Not b/c of VAT II but b/c of sex abuse in the church. But we’ll be the fall guy. The Latin mass will be coming back. It won’t stop the mass in the vernacular. Maybe, they’ll have a Latin mass on Sunday & one regular mass.
As God leads we will obey. Just knowing God & loving Him is enough.
Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of thy ppl & enkindle in them the fire of your love.
God bless
Tweedlealice

 

[angel12]

I’m saying you might want to read the thread for context on the point I was making that, to this Pope, it appears being a Catholic doesn’t matter.

I do read for content. The point I’m making is that you’re wrong about that.
People can see exactly what you’re saying and still disagree with you, you know

 

[EamonnMichael]

If the Vatican II Popes knew what the Church would become, they would have left it as they found it.

Communion in the hand is the very least of our worries.

 

[Dovekin]

in the context of the present discussion modernism refers to revamping the Church to “get with the times”. In other words, modernism is the view that the Church must adapt to the world (regardless of which way the world is going).

Cardinal Lustiger, the deceased archbishop of Paris, gave his thoughts on the Church and modernity in a speech on Liberty, Equality, Fraternity that can be read at First Things. It provides a more nuanced look at how the Church embraced the principles of the French Revolution after WW2.

Modernism, as defined by Pius X, was a narrow part of Catholic opposition to modernity. The Vatican was engaged in a struggle against the Revolutionary movement that started in France and the US, took away the Papal states in Italy, overturned gobernments in Russia and around the world. The near universal acceptance of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity after WW2 forced the Church to change its anti-modern focus, and rethink positions to accomodate what most already believed.

 

[commenter]

The bishops who voted on the documents of Vatican II went home and implemented those documents in their dioceses.

Vatican 2 included 16 major docs, one of which could have been several docs. Much implementation was done while bishops were in Rome.

Catholic education became semi independent, almost a church within the Church. This not only affected implementation of the Education document, but shaped how children and adults viewed all the other docs.

Anyone who had an agenda could describe the agenda as "in the spirit of Vatican ", and described those who disagreed as anti Vatican 2. The media, both Catholic and secular, put extreme attention to certain paragraphs in V2, and totally ignored others.

This was “the Implementation”. The bishops also had some (name removed by moderator)ut.