Vatican II Review

[Yggdrasil]

There is no official translation of the Vatican II documents into English. There are, I think two common ones (neither from someone at the Vatican) and the Vatican is using one of those. Though, I did year a few years back that the Vatican wanted an authoritative translation to be made.

Here is Austin Flannery, O.P.'s translation: “Finally, he brought his revelation to perfection when he accomplished on the cross the work of redemption by which he achieved salvation and true freedom for the human race.”

Hmm—are we perhaps on the threshold of a Borgesian labyrinth, where “the original is unfaithful to the translation?”

Fr. Flannery’s rendering appears to take a certain amount of license, but I certainly won’t object to it for the purposes of our discussion. It’s still saying that Christ’s revelation was “perfected” on the cross.

Remove the first eight words of Fr. Flannery’s translation and it is absolutely sound. Include them and it corrupts our understanding of revelation.

Christ’s revelation was ‘I have come to reconcile sinners and set the captives free’. The reconciliation of man and God was accomplished on the Cross. Certainly the Resurrection is important, but still “we preach Christ crucified”. Indeed, he acknowledge that his saving work was fulfilled when he cried out from the Cross “It is completed”. It would be unwise to say Christ was in error because he hadn’t risen yet or ascended so it wasn’t “finished”. Indeed, the totality of it all still is not “finished” because Christ still has yet to come again.

I certainly don’t suggest that Christ was in error. As I said earlier: “when Our Lord, dying on the cross, said ‘it is consummated,’ He was referring to the Old Law being fulfilled, and the perfect atonement for the sins of mankind, and the gift to His Church of his life-giving blood. Indeed: consummatum est.” You yourself seem to agree when you say that His “saving work was fulfilled.” We concur on this. And both of us are really only following St. Thomas Aquinas in this regard, who in his commentary on John’s gospel says:

Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, that is, all that the law and the prophets had foretold about him had now been accomplished: “Everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled” (Luke 24:44); “I have seen the end of every consummation” (Psalm 119:96).

So the traditional reading of consummatum est is that it pertains to the fulfillment of the Old Law and the prophets—but not, by extension, to the entirety of Christ’s revelation. You seem to be confusing the two. If revelation was “perfected” on the cross, then nothing could possibly add to it, and we could have Good Friday without Easter.

Christ’s revelation has always been said by the Church to have encompassed everything from the Incarnation to the death of the last Apostle (Dei Verbum, the Vatican II document on revelation, even acknowledges this much).

 

[ProVobis]

Hmm—are we perhaps on the threshold of a Borgesian labyrinth, where “the original is unfaithful to the translation?”

Or as the Italians say, “traduttore, traditore” (translator, traitor)

 

[otjm]

Not completely blanc-and-white? Talk about a one-sided view!
.
.
.
.
.
.

Where is spell check when I need it! LOL! I am a lousy typist and not a great proof reader!

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

Your first assumption is that Cardinal Ratzinger said that there was a direct contradiction. Wtih no disrespect to anyone here, words used in a technical sense in a technical document do not necessarily mean the same thing as when used in common language in an ordinary conversation. A counter syllabus is not per se a contradiction; it can also be a filling in of another side to what had been a one-sided statement.

What you may be unaware of is that there are issues within the church concerning some doctrines which appear to have two opposite and contradictory sides.

Cardinal Ratzinger:
Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 385: “By a kind of inner necessity, therefore, **the optimism of **the countersyllabus gave way to a new cry that was far moreintense and more dramatic than the former one.”

Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 391: " The task is not, therefore, to suppress the Council but to discover the real Council and to deepen its true intention in the light of present experience. That means that there can be no **return to the **Syllabus, which may have marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism and a newly conceived Marxism but cannot be the last stage."

He specifically states that there can be no return to the Syllabus…pretty clear and concise. I don’t know how much more specific one can get.

I am aware of such contradictions. As people say that Vatican II tried to create a deeper understanding of Church teachings and elaborate on them, I refer to Pope Pius IX at the First Vatican Council…

Pope Pius IX,
First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, *ex *cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”

If the then Cardinal Ratzinger meant something other than what is stated above, I don’t see it…

God Bless

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

Now wait just a minute here! I **never **told you that you committed a mortal sin. What I said was that it’s RASH JUDGMENT and that rash judgment CAN BE a mortal sin. I never said you were guilty of morta lsin.

And yet you urged him to repent…

Nevertheless, as you are convinced by your facts, he is convinced by his. Agree to disagree.

God Bless

 

[jpy15026]

THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM

Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910.

This oath was the litmus test by which Catholic Orthodoxy was measured. The oath was taken from 1910 to 1966. It was abolished one year after Vatican II ended.

To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

The first sentence to be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries :

I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day.

And the last sentence to be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries:

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .

papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm

Pope St. Pius X defined modernism as “the synthesis of all heresies”. To combat this all-encompassing heresy from inflicting the Church he, by virtue of his Apostolic Authority, ordered all clergy, teachers of theology and seminarians to take the “Oath Against Modernism”.
.

 

[Onegin]

It may be of no particular help to your understanding, but factually, the Church does not re-baptize those Protestants who were baptized using the Trinitarian Formula and water. The Church considers them baptized; and you might want to look at what the Church held baptism to be, pre-Vatican 2. In short, people who were baptized were baptized into Christ and into the Church, even though they might be members of a church that did not offically recognize Batism as having the sacramental effect the Church considers it to have. When they became Catholics, they did not re-baptize them.

The sacramental effect of Baptism does not dilute the teaching on* extra ecclesium nulla salus. * When the Protestants separated, they kept the genuine sacrament which emanates from the Catholic Church to begin with. By virtue of their sacrament having originated from within the Church, they too retain the graces that flow from it and, hopefully, would lead them to return to the Church. The error is in the assertion that the Church of Christ exists in separated churches. A valid sacrament (The direct consequence of the Catholic Church) does not make a separated church “part of the Church of Christ”. There is no such division. One is either within the Church of Christ by virtue of being Catholic or invincible ignorance or one is not.

As to the poster who referred me to the CDF pages: Okay. The problem is that nothing in these pages truly “clarifies” the teaching that they claim was clear to begin with. The argument is that “subsists in” rather than “is” is only supposed to be used to recognise that other Churches exist outside of the Catholic Church instead of a “churchless void”.

In reality, the Council Fathers simply intended to recognise the presence of ecclesial elements proper to the Church of Christ in the non-Catholic Christian communities. It does not follow that the identification of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church no longer holds, nor that outside the Catholic Church there is a complete absence of ecclesial elements, a “churchless void”. What it does mean is that if the expression “subsistit in” is considered in its true context, namely in reference to the Church of Christ “constituted and organised in this world as a society… governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”, then the change from est to subsistit in takes on no particular theological significance of discontinuity with previously held Catholic doctrine.

(emphasis mine)
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_commento-responsa_en.html

My question to all of you: What in the Catholic teaching of extra ecclesium nulla salus required “deepening” or “clarification”?

Pious XI and XII thought that the meaning clearly communicated the Catholic teaching. What was wrong with it the way it was? Clearly, this “clarification” has only caused untold problems in allowing erroneous interpretations (I’m trying to assume the best intentions on the part of the actual drafters as the CDF does). Yet the CDF continues to argue that this change was “deepening” the teaching. How can something that does nothing but confuse and lead to erroneous “ecumenical efforts” deepen the Catholic Faith? I submit that it does not.

The CDF utterly fails to quote anything other than conciliar and post-conciliar documents in making it’s case. And yet it argues that this teaching is consistent with prior Catholic teaching, without making any comparison. Why? Because trying to compare the pre and post conciliar positions is absurd.

Again, compare the statement of Pius XII:

Further, one cannot say in any way that these societies are either members or parts of that same Church, because they are visibly separated from Catholic Unity."

With that of (then) Cardinal Ratzinger:

Vatican II did not use Pius XII’s expression according to which ‘the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church of Christ.’ Instead it preferred the expression ‘The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church…’ **because, ‘it wished to affirm the being of the Church as such is a larger identity than the Roman Catholic Church.’” **

With all due respect, I don’t see a correlation. One says one thing while another says the opposite. Both cannot be true. Either the Church is a “larger identity” than the Catholic Church (thereby indicating it is also composed of other churches), or there is only one Church and various other Churches “visibly separated from Catholic Unity.”

It cannot be both ways.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The sacramental effect of Baptism does not dilute the teaching on* extra ecclesium nulla salus. *When the Protestants separated, they kept the genuine sacrament which emanates from the Catholic Church to begin with. By virtue of their sacrament having originated from within the Church, they too retain the graces that flow from it and, hopefully, would lead them to return to the Church. The error is in the assertion that the Church of Christ exists in separated churches. A valid sacrament (The direct consequence of the Catholic Church) does not make a separated church “part of the Church of Christ”. There is no such division. One is either within the Church of Christ by virtue of being Catholic or invincible ignorance or one is not.

As to the poster who referred me to the CDF pages: Okay. The problem is that nothing in these pages truly “clarifies” the teaching that they claim was clear to begin with. The argument is that “subsists in” rather than “is” is only supposed to be used to recognise that other Churches exist outside of the Catholic Church instead of a “churchless void”.

(emphasis mine)
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_commento-responsa_en.html

My question to all of you: What in the Catholic teaching of extra ecclesium nulla salus required “deepening” or “clarification”?

Pious XI and XII thought that the meaning clearly communicated the Catholic teaching. What was wrong with it the way it was? Clearly, this “clarification” has only caused untold problems in allowing erroneous interpretations (I’m trying to assume the best intentions on the part of the actual drafters as the CDF does). Yet the CDF continues to argue that this change was “deepening” the teaching. How can something that does nothing but confuse and lead to erroneous “ecumenical efforts” deepen the Catholic Faith? I submit that it does not.

The CDF utterly fails to quote anything other than conciliar and post-conciliar documents in making it’s case. And yet it argues that this teaching is consistent with prior Catholic teaching, without making any comparison. Why? Because trying to compare the pre and post conciliar positions is absurd.

Again, compare the statement of Pius XII:

With that of (then) Cardinal Ratzinger:

With all due respect, I don’t see a correlation. One says one thing while another says the opposite. Both cannot be true. Either the Church is a “larger identity” than the Catholic Church (thereby indicating it is also composed of other churches), or there is only one Church and various other Churches “visibly separated from Catholic Unity.”

It cannot be both ways.

It can be, and is, what the Church says that it is. I see it as a clarification of what the Church teaches. Church teaching can always be explicated and explained further. You see something oxymoronic, the Church sees a further clarification and distillation. And She has clarified what “subsists” means.

The problem with some “traditionalists” is that they do not see how “conservativism” is different from “orthodoxy.” They confuse the two. They have a conservative standard that doesn’t allow for clarification or further explanation. Conservativism is the standard against which they measure everything, when orthodoxy can always be explained and clarified (the Church’s history in the world can be seen as an effort at just that, with the rise of each heresy).

Further, if what you say is true and the Church has erred in this area, in the teaching office of the Magisterium, then Christ has truly failed in His promise and the gates of Hell have prevailed against His Church…which we know cannot be.

 

[Onegin]

It can be, and is, what the Church says that it is. I see it as a clarification of what the Church teaches. Church teaching can always be explicated and explained further.

But saying “it is because the Church says it is” fails to realise that this is not what the Church said that it was prior to Lumen Gentium! One may call something a “distillation” or a “clarification” until they are blue in the face but, to the extent that such “clarification” appears to facially contradict pre-existing teaching, I think it must be regarded with a degree of skepticism, CDF statements or no.

Again, the CDF makes no attempt to explain how the prior statements of Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII and Leo XIII can be reconciled with* Lumen Gentium.*

I’m trying to approach this issue with good faith but when the leaders of the Church refuse to do anything other than continue to assert that we must believe something simply because it is current teaching, even if said teaching facially appears to approve of something that was previously condemned, we are to sit back and not question that thing that has been previously condemned.

The Church is composed of human beings prone to error. When two things conflict, either someone was really confused when they wrote the conflicting statement, or was wrong. Or the pre-existing statement was wrong. What makes me a “traditionalist” by definition (or whatever you want to call it) is that I give more weight to the pre-existing statement than the later conflicting one that purports to clarify.

The problem with some “traditionalists” is that they do not see how “conservativism” is different from “orthodoxy.” They confuse the two. They have a conservative standard that doesn’t allow for clarification or further explanation. Conservativism is the standard against which they measure everything, when orthodoxy can always be explained and clarified (the Church’s history in the world can be seen as an effort at just that, with the rise of each heresy).

I’m not sure, as I don’t really use either term in relation to the Faith. However, I have heard a number of Catholics label themselves as “Orthodox” while approving of all sorts of novelties, so I’m not sure I would align myself with such a description. “Conservative” makes me think of a political position but, to the extent that it means a wariness of any novelty that appears on its face to contradict pre-existing teaching then, yes, I guess I am a “conservative” in that sense.

Further, if what you say is true and the Church has erred in this area, in the teaching office of the Magisterium, then Christ has truly failed in His promise and the gates of Hell have prevailed against His Church…which we know cannot be.

The Church may and, in fact, has erred in Her teaching throughout history. On of the biggest examples was when she subscribed to the Arian heresy for some time. To say that the Church can never err is a misunderstanding of the concept of Papal infallibility. The “clarifications” that Vatican II proposed in the “subsists in” change were not infallible declarations, therefore they are subject to error.

The Church can err, this does not mean in any way that the gates of Hell have prevailed, merely that the Church is composed of fallible human beings, whom, like the rest of us, are prone to error and corruption.

Thus, if a document proposes error, this error can be corrected by correcting the document. My problem with the CDF “explanation” is that it makes not attempt to clarify the obvious inconsistency between the Pre and Post Vatican II statements as to whether the Church of Christ does or does not contain separated churches.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

But saying “it is because the Church says it is” fails to realise that this is not what the Church said that it was prior to Lumen Gentium! One may call something a “distillation” or a “clarification” until they are blue in the face but, to the extent that such “clarification” appears to facially contradict pre-existing teaching, I think it must be regarded with a degree of skepticism, CDF statements or no.

Again, the CDF makes no attempt to explain how the prior statements of Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII and Leo XIII can be reconciled with* Lumen Gentium.*

I’m trying to approach this issue with good faith but when the leaders of the Church refuse to do anything other than continue to assert that we must believe something simply because it is current teaching, even if said teaching facially appears to approve of something that was previously condemned, we are to sit back and not question that thing that has been previously condemned.

The Church is composed of human beings prone to error. When two things conflict, either someone was really confused when they wrote the conflicting statement, or was wrong. Or the pre-existing statement was wrong. What makes me a “traditionalist” by definition (or whatever you want to call it) is that I give more weight to the pre-existing statement than the later conflicting one that purports to clarify.

I’m not sure, as I don’t really use either term in relation to the Faith. However, I have heard a number of Catholics label themselves as “Orthodox” while approving of all sorts of novelties, so I’m not sure I would align myself with such a description. “Conservative” makes me think of a political position but, to the extent that it means a wariness of any novelty that appears on its face to contradict pre-existing teaching then, yes, I guess I am a “conservative” in that sense.

The Church may and, in fact, has erred in Her teaching throughout history. On of the biggest examples was when she subscribed to the Arian heresy for some time. To say that the Church can never err is a misunderstanding of the concept of Papal infallibility. The “clarifications” that Vatican II proposed in the “subsists in” change were not infallible declarations, therefore they are subject to error.

The Church can err, this does not mean in any way that the gates of Hell have prevailed, merely that the Church is composed of fallible human beings, whom, like the rest of us, are prone to error and corruption.

Thus, if a document proposes error, this error can be corrected by correcting the document. My problem with the CDF “explanation” is that it makes not attempt to clarify the obvious inconsistency between the Pre and Post Vatican II statements as to whether the Church of Christ does or does not contain separated churches.

I can only point you to this. It seems to explain, it seems to explain it officially and clearly, from the Magisterium. I accept the explanation:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

The TEACHING Church has never erred. In the case of Arianism and Pope Liberius, which is what I assume you refer to, there is no hard evidence that he ever taught or subscribed to the Arian heresy. The worst case scenario is that he was coerced into signing, but there is no certainty that he signed anything.

catholicfaithandreason.org/papal_infallibility.htm

 

[otjm]

THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM

Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910.

This oath was the litmus test by which Catholic Orthodoxy was measured. The oath was taken from 1910 to 1966. It was abolished one year after Vatican II ended.

To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

The first sentence to be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries :

I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day.

And the last sentence to be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries:

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .

papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm

Pope St. Pius X defined modernism as “the synthesis of all heresies”. To combat this all-encompassing heresy from inflicting the Church he, by virtue of his Apostolic Authority, ordered all clergy, teachers of theology and seminarians to take the “Oath Against Modernism”.
./QUOTEAll of which perhaps has an interesting lesson - such oaths are worth the paper they are written on and precious little more.

The problems that were wide spread after Vatican 2 - the reaction to Humanae Vitae, the subsequent dilly dallying with the rubrics of the OF, the “buy in” to Situational Ethics that occured in Moral Theology, some of the lala issues that arose in Christology - the list goes on and on - didn’t suddenly occur out of whole cloth. They occured because a significant number of theologians, seminary faculties and Church leaders took the oath well before Vatican 2 and did not even pay the oath adequate lip service. Not all; not a majority even; but the oath was a joke as there was no enforcement of it anywhere along the line. The problem simply continued to grow quietly, out of sight of most people. It is a bit like taking an oath to uphold the Constitution of the Untied States; those who wish to be traitors never let that stop them, or even slow them down. There was an FBI agent (if I recall correctly), lay member of Opus Dei who was a significant traitor - so, oath to the Constitution, Church rules and all had no impact whatsoever. And I don’t recall anything in the doctrines, dogma and moral theology of the Church which would support his acts…

There are those who want the oath reinstituted. With the track record we have now, decades and decades later, I have to ask - what will it change? It had no impact then on too many; what makes anyone think that will change?

And who is it exactly who will be the “thought police”? It is all well and good to desire things to change; but one needs to keep in mind that what one asks for may not be what is delivered.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Yes, I have done research, and no, I’m not denying it simply because I’d rather “brush it off.” I’ve heard various criticisms of John Paul II, but the claim that he made offerings to pagan gods has not been among the criticisms I’ve EVER heard. But if you’re getting it outlandishly wrong regarding the alleged “mark of Shiva” incident, then right there it makes me suspect that your sources regarding the “offering to pagan gods” are highly suspect. At any rate, Catholic apologist James Akin in the Nazareth Resource Library site discusses the alleged “mark of Shiva” issue at cin.org/users/james/questions/q003.htm (see below).

N.B. Please note that this was written several years BEFORE it was clarified that the SSPX isn’t really in schism, hence the characterizations of the SSPX as “schismatic.”

Now wait just a minute here! I **never **told you that you committed a mortal sin. What I said was that it’s RASH JUDGMENT and that rash judgment CAN BE a mortal sin. I never said you were guilty of mortal sin. Rash judgment is at least an objectively venial sin, though. At any rate, you stated a grossly incorrect “fact.” You rashly assumed that His Holiness had received the mark of Shiva when in reality he did no such thing. And yet you accuse ME of being judgmental? Talk about judgmental! It doesn’t matter that you claim to have been judging His Holiness’ actions rather than intentions; the fact is, you made judgments about actions that His Holiness never even did in the first place, which is just as bad.

1.- What that apologist said doesn’t convince me. How does he know she was a Catholic priest? And even if she was, what is she doing being a priest anyway? Women can’t be priests. Therefore regardless of what religion she was John Paul II should not have received any mark from her.

2.- You told me I needed to repent. You were implying I sinned by judging the actions of John Paul II. I never accused you of being judgemental, you accused me of being judgemental first. I’m going to say the same thing to your comment here as I did to your previous comment. Do you realize that by calling me judgemental you yourself are being judgemental? Again, there is nothing wrong with me judging the ACTIONS of John Paul II.

 

[CDNowak]

1.- What that apologist said doesn’t convince me. How does he know she was a Catholic priest? And even if she was, what is she doing being a priest anyway? Women can’t be priests. Therefore regardless of what religion she was John Paul II should not have received any mark from her.

I think some people need to step back a bit.

Mr Akin, citing Archbishop Foley (President of the Pontifical Council for Social Communication), never claims she was a priestess, in fact he explicitly and repeatedly states that she is not a Hindu priestess, and that the act is akin to the lei given in greeting in Hawaii.

 

[DavidJoseph]

1.- What that apologist said doesn’t convince me. How does he know she was a Catholic priest? And even if she was, what is she doing being a priest anyway? Women can’t be priests. Therefore regardless of what religion she was John Paul II should not have received any mark from her.

He said she was a Catholic, not a Catholic priestess! Huge difference! And Akin was citing Archbishop Foley, so it’s not his own conjecture but rather what the Church says it was.

2.- You told me I needed to repent. You were implying I sinned by judging the actions of John Paul II. I never accused you of being judgemental, you accused me of being judgemental first. I’m going to say the same thing to your comment here as I did to your previous comment. Do you realize that by calling me judgemental you yourself are being judgemental? Again, there is nothing wrong with me judging the ACTIONS of John Paul II.

Sigh … once again you fail to understand. The objectively sinful action on your part is NOT the judging of one’s actions in and of itself but rather RASH judgment. You ASSUMED that the Holy Father was doing something sinful when in reality, he wasn’t doing what you claimed he was doing. Without bothering to verify, you assumed … and assumed wrongly. So I wasn’t being judgmental; I was merely stating a fact. You, however, are wrongly calling me judgmental, and as a result, you’re being judgmental yourself yet. You’re doing the exact same thing of which you’re accusing me!

 

[DavidJoseph]

1.- Yes, or atleast close to being heretical. Maybe not 100% heretical.

Then you have placed yourself outside the Church. Vatican II is not optional for Catholics, and they may not reject it.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Yes, that is a bit too extreme; it ignores the reasons why we are where we are. Your comment really reduces to “it doesn’t matter because it doesn’t matter”, which doesn’t state any facts.

Catechesis went down the rabbit hole in the late 1960’s & early 1970’s, due to essentially throwing out a doctrinal approach to teaching the faith (The Baltimore Catechism) and replacing it with a “feel good, me and my buddy Jesus let’s all love one another” routine. And as catechesis was sorely and significantly lacking, people did not learn their faith. It wasn’t laziness on the part of students, or people outright rejecting the doctrines of the Church, but was rather a dumbing down of doctrines in a thoroughly misguided attempt to build faith. What no one seemed to figure out was that faith built on little or no basic information was meaningless.

The world of the US was far, far different 60 years ago than it is today. The US itself was far more conservative, not just politically but socially and morally. Protestantism was far stronger then than it is now;- for example, the laws on the books concerning the illegality of artifical birth control were for the msot part due to the Protestants. and as the Protestants accepted birht control more readily, those laws were removed or rewritten.

The Eucharist is not “treated with such unbelief” the belief simply wasn’t taught. It is a sad fact, but often one treated as if people were taught differently, but rejected the teaching. They didn’t reject the teaching; they were never taught.

you did a good job in explaining it. thank you.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Sigh … once again you fail to understand. The objectively sinful action on your part is NOT the judging of one’s actions in and of itself but rather RASH judgment. You ASSUMED that the Holy Father was doing something sinful when in reality, he wasn’t doing what you claimed he was doing. Without bothering to verify, you assumed … and assumed wrongly. So I wasn’t being judgmental; I was merely stating a fact. You, however, are wrongly calling me judgmental, and as a result, you’re being judgmental yourself yet. You’re doing the exact same thing of which you’re accusing me!

Ok, let’s put an end to this “judgemental” argument here. You just called me judgemental, ok? That makes you judgemental. You’re the one being judgemental here. As for JPII, how do you know he wasn’t doing what I said he was? This is a crucial point I keep trying to make, instead of assuming you’re right you have to do research on it and use multiple links. How do you think I know about this? Anyway, I’m not going to debate you on this judgemental thing anymore. You can keep calling me judgemental, but it only makes you yourself judgemental. So enough with this judgemental thing.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Then you have placed yourself outside the Church. Vatican II is not optional for Catholics, and they may not reject it.

That’s what you say. I am free to reject it. Many Traditional Catholics do.

 

[DavidJoseph]

Ok, let’s put an end to this “judgemental” argument here. You just called me judgemental, ok? That makes you judgemental. You’re the one being judgemental here. As for JPII, how do you know he wasn’t doing what I said he was? This is a crucial point I keep trying to make, instead of assuming you’re right you have to do research on it and use multiple links. How do you think I know about this? Anyway, I’m not going to debate you on this judgemental thing anymore. You can keep calling me judgemental, but it only makes you yourself judgemental. So enough with this judgemental thing.

Whatever … all you’ve been doing is sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalalalalalalalala … "

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Whatever … all you’ve been doing is sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalalalalalalalala … "

I could easily say the same thing about other people on this forum. Again, gets us nowhere!