Vatican II: The Vision Lives On

[THurifer2]

I really think Vatican II was a good council. But It came during a time when the worst possible American Generation was coming of age. The baby boomers and Vatican II was the absolute worst possible combination.

I am an Xer. The world would be a very different place if VII would have happened as my Gen approached “of age”

Things will start clearing up soon because the boomers are getting older and older.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Well, let us look at the examples with CatholicCulture.org presents.

Here is the summary of “weaknesses” from the main page:

• Articles undermining the Real Presence (Fidelity)
• Richard Rohr was a regular columnist in the Every Day Catholic section, and is still featured in the archives. (Fidelity)
• Books by Richard Rohr, William H. Shannon, Anthony T. Padovano, Raymond Brown, and Arthur Baranowski (Fidelity)
• Tapes by Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton, Edwina Gateley, Richard Rohr, Donald Senior, C.P., Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland, Bishop Kenneth E. Untener, and Bill Huebsch (Fidelity)
• Special section featuring the writings of Raymond Brown (Fidelity)
• Promoted the TV series Nothing Sacred (Fidelity)
• Features well-known dissidents (Fidelity)

I don’t recognize any of the names, except Raymond Brown, because I have his Introduction to the New Testament. Is he really a Catholic dissident?

What’s up with the Bishops and Archbishops? Have they been excommunicated too? Or are they Anglican?

P.S. I just recognized Bill Huebsch as the author of the “Vatican II in Plain English” books that I never got around to ordering. I’m guessing this means I shouldn’t bother with that set?

 

[japhy]

Here is the summary of “weaknesses” from the main page:

• Articles undermining the Real Presence (Fidelity)
• Richard Rohr was a regular columnist in the Every Day Catholic section, and is still featured in the archives. (Fidelity)
• Books by Richard Rohr, William H. Shannon, Anthony T. Padovano, Raymond Brown, and Arthur Baranowski (Fidelity)
• Tapes by Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton, Edwina Gateley, Richard Rohr, Donald Senior, C.P., Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland, Bishop Kenneth E. Untener, and Bill Huebsch (Fidelity)
• Special section featuring the writings of Raymond Brown (Fidelity)
• Promoted the TV series Nothing Sacred (Fidelity)
• Features well-known dissidents (Fidelity)

They have examples for many of those people. Other information can be found elsewhere online.

I was about to start listing things, but I think I’d be breaking forums rules by doing so.

 

[I_Believe]

I_Believe,

It seems really strange that you would publicly denounce JimR’s link, yet promote a questionable link of your own. Your signature failed to list the following sentence from its blogspot, which I believe tells its own story to those who have eyes to see.

I’m glad the Holy See doesn’t share your view regarding the internal matter between the SSPX and the Rome. If BXVI viewed them this way, I doubt Fr Michael Mary and company would have been regularized recently, considering their past affliation with the SSPX. Pope BXVI knows what he’s getting. He’s done a great thing bringing more holy priests and seminarians into full communion with the Church. You think no one in the Vatican has read Fr Michael Mary’s words on that blog ? Or is it just the surname Lefevbre drives you nuts ?

Now that we know where you are coming from, it is easy to see why you would consider any other opinion as “flirting with heresy.”

You don’t have a clue where I’m coming from sister. It was the words of Fr Michael Mary in that very article, and the words of Anthony Mazzone in an article titled What Is There To Be Done in The Remnant that lead me to where I now stand.

I’m right where I feel BXVI wants me. Orthodox in my beliefs and at peace with both forms of the Liturgy.

Have you seen me post any hardline and ultra trarditionalist rants lately , as I have in the past ? The last discussion I participated in regarding the OF, I defended the Novus Ordo Missal. I stated that I see nothing non-catholic in it. A couple of members tried to tell me… oh wait, you were there weren’t you ? Yea, the “jewish based/sounding” Offertory. Once I brought it to their attention that it was the Roman Catholic Doctrine in the prayer that mattered, they moved on to easier targets.

I surely offended a lot of folks up until a couple of months ago with my defense of traditionalist concerns. While I still see most of those concerns valid, I’ve distanced myself from the bitterness, hard heartedness, and lack of prudence displayed by some of these clergy and their flock. I will, however keep up my guard against the dissedent viewpoints of those clergy and faithful who are a bit too liberal in their stance.

So where I stand, as you put it, is where I feel I belong. Not where you want me to stand, nor where the ones you argue against wish I were still standing.

Over on Fisheaters and AQ, I’m considered a neo con. Over here, I used to be considered a defender of the Faith by the ultra traditionalists, disliked by the orthodox and liberal. Nowadays, the liberal dislikes me because I used to be ultra traditionalist.
Those of which in that group who used to give me a back pat here and there now treat me as a liberal because I spoke out against the imprudent name calling of BXVI by the SSPX’s Fellay. I suppose my defense of BXVI has something to do with it as well.

Where do you wish I stood Joysong ? With anyone who disagrees with, ridicules, and contradicts anything a
person identified as a traditionalist says, even if they are, at times,
in error ?

Talk to me Joysong, what’s it take to get on your buddy list ? Tell me your definition of dissident as it relates to the Church. You might find I’m standing right beside you.

Are my words from the days when I was confused too much to overcome ?

 

[I_Believe]

I really think Vatican II was a good council. But It came during a time when the worst possible American Generation was coming of age. The baby boomers and Vatican II was the absolute worst possible combination.

I am an Xer. The world would be a very different place if VII would have happened as my Gen approached “of age”

Things will start clearing up soon because the boomers are getting older and older.

I agree completely.

 

[Joysong]

Japhy,

I see you are predictably on time, ready to pick away. It only took an hour and forty minutes to find my post.

Since it was not directed to you, I see no valid reason to respond, since the tone of your post indicates you are once again spinning my meaning. Nevertheless, I cite this sentence as my rationale to avoid any further discussion you address to me on this topic.

Japhy:

Joysong:

Your signature (I_Believe’s, to whom I directed my post – not you)

failed to list the following sentence from its blogspot, which I believe tells its own story to those who have eyes to see: He seems ready to “let us do the experiment of Tradition” as Archbishop Lefebvre asked so many years ago.
The request to “let us to do the experiment of Tradition” is not a heretical statement, although the man who said it committed a schismatic act by ordaining bishops without permission of the Holy See. You will need to make your case a little stronger.

You see my meaning about a “spin,” Jeff? Show me where I called this a heretical statement … if you will.

The rest of your response was solely an opinion held by you, and not necessarily by others, so I won’t even go there.

 

[japhy]

I see you are predictably on time, ready to pick away. It only took an hour and forty minutes to find my post.

I’m subscribed to this thread, so I don’t have to “find” any posts in threads I’m interested in. While I will admit that I do, from time to time, look at a specific user’s posting history for context, I do not hunt down a particular user’s posts to respond to them out of the blue. (One recent instance was when I learned that one user had a second username here, so I went back to examine a few of the threads in which both of us participated.)

Since it was not directed to you, I see no valid reason to respond, since the tone of your post indicates you are once again spinning my meaning. Nevertheless, I cite this sentence as my rationale to avoid any further discussion you address to me on this topic.

I didn’t mean to offend you by answering a post in this thread that you did not address to me. I didn’t mean to intrude.

As for “spinning” your meaning, you said you were going to let the next sentence speak for itself. The sentence quoted Archbishop Lefebvre, so I admit I assumed you were implying that it had a heretical or schismatic “flavor” to it. In other words, I_Believe had questioned the orthodoxy or fidelity of the American Catholic web site, but you took issue to the blog that I_Believe’s signature came from (and a few other sentences found in the same blog post), so I assumed you were calling into question I_Believe’s ability to question the orthodoxy or fidelity of some other web site.

You said, based on the words from that blog post, that I_Believe “promote a questionable link”, that the next sentence “tells its own story”, and that the signature (and the post it comes from) tells us “where I_Believe is] coming from”. Now, I seem to have read the situation wrong. Perhaps you could clarify your initial comments?

When I said that the quote was not heretical, I was defending it as not contrary to orthodoxy and not an example of infidelity to the Church. I did not mean that you had accused it (or I_Believe) of being heretical, so I apologize if I put words in your mouth.

Please do me a favor: don’t get this or any other Liturgy & Sacraments thread locked or deleted!

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed.