Vatican II

[clem456]

So just for intellectual curiosity here, how do you know that YOU are interpreting VII correctly? Is it because lot of priests you met support your view? Is it because your view is supported on many websites? How do you know that you are right?

I do not interpret V2. The Church wrote it under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Popes teach, interpret and implement it. Catechists pass it down. I try to understand and accept that teaching by reading the documents, the encyclicals, taking classes, praying in a spirit of acceptance. My own interpretation is somewhat irrelevant. This is not about competing interpretations. Competing interpretations are what cause people to become out-of-communion with one another.

 

[jam070406]

I would not presume to know your personal diposition. I am responding to your post.
These words in particular represent an attitude I am trying to contrast:

“”**What I’m saying are errors **are the strategies the conciliar and postconciliar Church adopted…""

I prefer to simply accept with obedience all the Church teaches, whether I think it is erroneous or not. If my bishop says his priests can wear sandals and cutoffs and long hair, I’ll show up at Mass and be reverent before almighty God. If the Pope rebukes him and requires the Latin Mass tomorrow, same difference, I’m going. I’m not finding errors and problems and attending a Parish 30 miles away or worse.

Does anyone stop to contemplate the divine in the council? Is it just possible that the language is challenging and seemingly ambiguous by God’s design? What higher purpose can come of the documents of V2 that maybe is being overlooked?

Yes. It’s God’s design. To put it bluntly, those that are Faithful will be able to discern them in light of 2000 years of Tradition. Those that seek to change Christ’s Church and please man over God will twist them to their own condemnation. What is being overlooked is chastisement for unfaithfulness.

 

[edwest2]

I think you are underestimating the problem here.

As far as those who disagree with VII go, they see the abuses of VII as being the result of actual VII teaching. They have been told by priests and perhaps some Bishops and Cardinals during their life that the abuse is infact the VII teaching.

So met with such a crisis, these people decided to remain with what they understand. Who can blame them? If your priest told you tomorrow that the Eucharist is merely symbolic, and it is a part of the VII teaching, the most likely thing you would do is remain with your understanding rather than embrace VII.

The problem is compounded by the fact that just like with Scripture, VII language can be interpreted ambiguously. So one can read in ones own ideas unless they are careful to do so in light of keeping with Tradition of the Church. For a Protestant reading certain passages of scripture, it can seem like they are right. Asking a not so well catechized Catholic to read this same passage out of context can lead them to think that the Protestants are right as well.

At this point in time, the average Catholic might choose to become Protestant, hold on to ones current beliefs and disregard that passage or the entire book, or try to go back to first principles of why one is Catholic to begin with.

For most people, the last one is not well known. So they go with either the first or the 2nd. Taking this to the case of VII, we now have those who embraced the abuses as VII teaching and those who discarded VII completely.

There is no reason to discard Vatican II but a great need to understand it. Here is a good resource:

harvestingthefruit.com/

Absolutely none of the changes were even suggested by Vatican II but abuses occurred. Here is the story:

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704586504574654282563939764.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[triumphguy]

I think we need to separate Tradition from “traditional”

“Tradition” is the Magisterium and is the “tradere” handing on of Christ.

“Traditional” is a habitual or historical way of doing something.

Also:

Vatican II is the magisterium.

The way it is put into practice is not.

 

[OurBeloved]

There is no reason to discard Vatican II but a great need to understand it. Here is a good resource:

harvestingthefruit.com/

Absolutely none of the changes were even suggested by Vatican II but abuses occurred. Here is the story:

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704586504574654282563939764.html

Peace,
Ed

Well, did you read what I said? Because I in no way claimed that Vatican II should be discarded

My point was rather that the resources you provided are not known to many individuals. And when they do get to know it, it appears as a ‘this person’s word over that person’s word’.

 

[OurBeloved]

I do not interpret V2. The Church wrote it under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Popes teach, interpret and implement it. Catechists pass it down. I try to understand and accept that teaching by reading the documents, the encyclicals, taking classes, praying in a spirit of acceptance. My own interpretation is somewhat irrelevant. This is not about competing interpretations. Competing interpretations are what cause people to become out-of-communion with one another.

Well, my point again dear sir, is simple. What makes you think that you are abiding correctly by Vatican II and someone else is not?

Lets be more specific here with an example. Is the priest who believes that Marian devotion should be discouraged in the church interpreting Vatican II properly? Or are you correct?

Or is the priest who believes that some humor and pop songs must be infused in to the liturgy correct, or are you correct (assuming you are against that sort of thing)?

Or is the priest who believes that Protestants should not be converted to the Catholic faith and should simply be asked to be “GOOD” protestants correct? Or are you correct (assuming you believe otherwise)?

In each situation, think carefully as to how you would come to know.

 

[CesarAugustus]

Yes. It’s God’s design. To put it bluntly, those that are Faithful will be able to discern them in light of 2000 years of Tradition. Those that seek to change Christ’s Church and please man over God will twist them to their own condemnation. What is being overlooked is chastisement for unfaithfulness.

The part I put in bold sums various of the problems we are living today. Well put!

Blessings!

 

[clem456]

Well, my point again dear sir, is simple. What makes you think that you are abiding correctly by Vatican II and someone else is not?

Lets be more specific here with an example. Is the priest who believes that Marian devotion should be discouraged in the church interpreting Vatican II properly? Or are you correct?

Or is the priest who believes that some humor and pop songs must be infused in to the liturgy correct, or are you correct (assuming you are against that sort of thing)?

Or is the priest who believes that Protestants should not be converted to the Catholic faith and should simply be asked to be “GOOD” protestants correct? Or are you correct (assuming you believe otherwise)?

In each situation, think carefully as to how you would come to know.

Why do you ask me these questions? What does it matter if I am correct? I trust the Church’s decisions.

 

[OurBeloved]

Why do you ask me these questions? What does it matter if I am correct? I trust the Church’s decisions.

Ok let me ask again. How do you KNOW what is the Church’s decision regarding the matters I asked you before? How do you KNOW that a priest who claims the above is in error?

 

[clem456]

Ok let me ask again. How do you KNOW what is the Church’s decision regarding the matters I asked you before? How do you KNOW that a priest who claims the above is in error?

Same way you do.
In the case of the LCWR, it is evident the authority of the Church finds problems, recognizes them and is correcting them. In the case of the SSPX, same thing or similar thing. What - I - know about all this is not very relevant, and what I do know is from listening to the Church… not the Church I wish existed, the one that -does- exist. The Church that exists is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and if the bishops and Pope allow my priest to face south-southwest while saying Mass, I accept that.

 

[OraLabora]

The part I put in bold sums various of the problems we are living today. Well put!

Blessings!

The problems we are living today are the problems we have been living since the Garden of Eden. Any casual reading of St. Paul’s epistles and the psalms should put to rest the notion that we are in any way especially more sinful today. Maybe we’re just more efficient at it due to modern mass communications.

For example the sexual abuse scandal in the Church goes back to before Vatican II.

Just because sin was less visible in earlier times, does not mean that sin did not exist then.

 

[OurBeloved]

Same way you do.
In the case of the LCWR, it is evident the authority of the Church finds problems, recognizes them and is correcting them. In the case of the SSPX, same thing or similar thing. What - I - know about all this is not very relevant, and what I do know is from listening to the Church… not the Church I wish existed, the one that -does- exist. The Church that exists is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and if the bishops and Pope allow my priest to face south-southwest while saying Mass, I accept that.

Ok you are avoiding the question here. I never said how I know. So please enlighten me on how you do it.

Also, please let me know about how you applies this method of knowing to each of the issues I brought up before.

In short, I am asking WHO is part of the church and WHO is not. Is that priest who is teaching those “errors” part of the church? How does the average person know? Not everyone has direct access to the Pope to ask questions.

 

[edwest2]

The problems we are living today are the problems we have been living since the Garden of Eden. Any casual reading of St. Paul’s epistles and the psalms should put to rest the notion that we are in any way especially more sinful today. Maybe we’re just more efficient at it due to modern mass communications.

For example the sexual abuse scandal in the Church goes back to before Vatican II.

Just because sin was less visible in earlier times, does not mean that sin did not exist then.

That’s true, but Vatican II had nothing to do with what came after.

Peace,
Ed

 

[OurBeloved]

The problems we are living today are the problems we have been living since the Garden of Eden. Any casual reading of St. Paul’s epistles and the psalms should put to rest the notion that we are in any way especially more sinful today. Maybe we’re just more efficient at it due to modern mass communications.

For example the sexual abuse scandal in the Church goes back to before Vatican II.

Just because sin was less visible in earlier times, does not mean that sin did not exist then.

I would say that sin has always been present. But after Vatican II, certain clergy decided to use it to further their own agendas and errors. The idea of sin became ambiguous because one priest would teach one thing and another would teach something else.

 

[Zosimus41]

And there are those that believe they are being obedient to their conscience and the Church by aligning it to Traditional Catholic Praxis and not novelties introduced by disobedience.

I like what you have stated here.

Setting a course by sea or by air!

Let hope we all make it to the same destination!

 

[clem456]

Ok you are avoiding the question here. I never said how I know. So please enlighten me on how you do it.

Also, please let me know about how you applies this method of knowing to each of the issues I brought up before.

In short, I am asking WHO is part of the church and WHO is not. Is that priest who is teaching those “errors” part of the church? How does the average person know? Not everyone has direct access to the Pope to ask questions.

I’m not avoiding your question at all. I’m directly answering it.
Let’s not chase our tails.

 

[OraLabora]

In short, I am asking WHO is part of the church and WHO is not. Is that priest who is teaching those “errors” part of the church? How does the average person know? Not everyone has direct access to the Pope to ask questions.

We are all part of the Church by virtue of our baptism. Even those in error. Even those excommunicated. Excommunication is a form of censure, not removal from the Church.

To a certain extent, even Protestants are part of the Church, if they have received a valid trinitarian baptism. They are in imperfect communion to be sure and are deeply lacking in Catholic religious instruction, which is why it isn’t just a matter of allowing them up to the altar to receive if they decide to come into full communion.

To suggest that those who teach error are NOT part of the Church is itself error. There is only one answer possible, all those who are validly baptized are part of the Church.

The priest who teaches error even notoriously, still validly confects the Blessed Sacrament so long as he’s validly ordained, properly does the consecration, and intends to do so. The Sacrament is from God and works through him, he is a minister of the Sacrament, not the author of the Sacrament itself.

How the Church punishes him is a matter of internal Church discipline. What the Catholic Church can do is sternly or not-so-sternly warn him, censure him, remove his faculties, transfer him to the least desirable parish in the diocese, forbid him from teaching (if he’s a teacher) or laicize him. What she cannot do is say he is no longer part of the Church.

 

[OurBeloved]

We are all part of the Church by virtue of our baptism. Even those in error. Even those excommunicated. Excommunication is a form of censure, not removal from the Church.

To a certain extent, even Protestants are part of the Church, if they have received a valid trinitarian baptism. They are in imperfect communion to be sure and are deeply lacking in Catholic religious instruction, which is why it isn’t just a matter of allowing them up to the altar to receive if they decide to come into full communion.

To suggest that those who teach error are NOT part of the Church is itself error. There is only one answer possible, all those who are validly baptized are part of the Church.

The priest who teaches error even notoriously, still validly confects the Blessed Sacrament so long as he’s validly ordained, properly does the consecration, and intends to do so. The Sacrament is from God and works through him, he is a minister of the Sacrament, not the author of the Sacrament itself.

How the Church punishes him is a matter of internal Church discipline. What the Catholic Church can do is sternly or not-so-sternly warn him, censure him, remove his faculties, transfer him to the least desirable parish in the diocese, forbid him from teaching (if he’s a teacher) or laicize him. What she cannot do is say he is no longer part of the Church.

I think you are again delving in to unnecessary issues here.

The question was simple. How do you know if the priest that you visit is orthodox in his positions? How do you know if he is not?

This is a very simple question that does not require answering whether the Protestant or Schismatic shares any theological communion or not. So lets not blow this out of proportion.

 

[OurBeloved]

I’m not avoiding your question at all. I’m directly answering it.
Let’s not chase our tails.

So how is that I do not see any answers to the issues I raised? Was the priest correct?

You are being a bit dishonest here in asserting that you answered those questions, are you not?

 

[triumphguy]

We’ve seen a pendulum of theological thought swinging since Vatican II.

If we stick close to the centre of the arc we will be fine. Out on the end of the arc we will be out on a limb.

There is no ONE answer or RIGHT WAY to being a Catholic. But there are wrong ways.

Nancy Pelosi is wrong. Bishop Williamson is wrong.