Vatican II

[TimothyH]

As I have said innumerable times before, I am using specific examples to illustrate a larger principle about the psychological need for a strong outward and perceivable identity for any group to have any measure of cohesion, and all the more for such an institution as God’s Church. I am not, in fact, arguing from the viewpoint of “likes.” Just because it so happens that I like many of the things (but not all) that I have used as examples does not mean that I am telling you what you must like. For example, the Rosary–one of my examples–is by far not my favorite prayer, but I use it as an example of a part of traditional Catholic identity, and it fits in traditional Catholic identity so much that it is practically unthinkable to not have it in the life of the Church.

I am not arguing about likes and dislikes. I am using tangible examples–and yes, Latin and clerical dress are validly among them–to explain why it is necessary to show a strong outward, visible identity, an identity that does not change on a whim and without extremely good reason. Regardless of whether we like how that identity has been traditionally shown or not.

I believe you have taken this the wrong way. Please stop acting like I have targeted you in some sort of personal attack when I have done nothing but pursue an impersonal argument of using examples to show a principle.

At the end of the day, it is your vision of a strong outward identity, that may or may not fit anyone elses spirituality.

I wish you would see that.

-Tim-

 

[YoungTradCath]

At the end of the day, it is your vision of a strong outward identity, that may or may not fit anyone elses spirituality.

I wish you would see that.

-Tim-

And I am saying that it is not necessary that every little bit of Catholic identity fit into everyone’s spirituality.

Also, nowhere did I say that this Catholic identity is limited to my examples. That is why they are examples. I am sorry if I implied otherwise.

Truly, we shouldn’t have to worry about this. It should be taken for granted and take care of itself and should be something that happens naturally. But we are in such a situation now as to compel us to take account of such things.

 

[clem456]

I guess this is directed at me. Review my words here:

Abp. DiNoia himself acknowledges this in the article you forward along, when he says that parts of Vatican II documents are “imprecise.” Again, God did not promise “You’ll teach everything perfectly all the time.” He simply promised He would not let us teach falsehood. There’s a whole range of values between teaching falsehood and teaching the entire truth as perfectly as possible. There’s no guarantee we’ll have the latter, just a guarantee we won’t have the former, which doesn’t preclude the possibility of ambiguity, imprecision, etc.

There’s an attitude that man really isn’t at the wheel here so the Church cannot possibly do anything wrong, even the little stuff. Well, maybe man’s not at the wheel and God is, but man’s certainly a copilot, and a copilot can do a lot to screw up a flight. (Let’s keep building that metaphor: the pilot is talented enough that He’ll touch the plane down on the runway no matter how inattentive, imprecise, etc., his copilot is, but the crappiness of the copilot means the flight’s going to take longer, it’s going to be extremely turbulent, the people will be terrified and maybe some will die of heart attacks from all the swooping and flipping, etc.).

**What I’m saying are errors **are the strategies the conciliar and postconciliar Church adopted for dealing with modernity. They were errors in judgment – the wrong choices of strategy (at least I think; a friend of mine has a very convincing argument that Vatican II was exactly what the church needed, though conciliar enthusiasts would not much enjoy hearing that argument). This doesn’t put me out of communion with the Church because the Church itself doesn’t teach that it will always make the optimal choice 100% of the time, and if you think it does, then you are in the very awkward position of thinking that Vatican finances are A-OK or that it handled the sex abuse cases just fine. Nor does it entail disobedience on my part. I may not the like the mess but I do my required part in it, even as I work within my station to repair it (e.g., volunteering to teach RCIA classes).

As you say life is full of ambiguity and human fallibility. But the Holy Spirit still guides the Church always through it’s hierarchy, despite the fact that humans are imperfect in their interpretation and implementation of Church documents, dogmas, scriputre, etc… So what is the Holy Spirit saying now, through Mother Church? Could it be that the challenge of our time is not cith and emhc and ad orientem and Latin, just maybe the challenge of our age is OBEDIENCE?

God is still in charge of the Church, through his ministers. We owe the Church our full obedience and reverence, nothing less, as Christ showed us obedience to the Father in the face of the ultimate error and injustice… You know when the Church is in error? When the Church says it is in error. Good luck waiting for acknowlegement of your “errors”. Pack a lunch cause you’re in for a long trip.

Many saints have shown us through the Catholic Tradition that loving obedience is the only course of action, even in the face of cruelty and “errors”. Read the diary of St Faustina for starters. Her personal opinions and tastes, and looking for errors in the Church, were the last thing on her mind.

 

[jam070406]

As you say life is full of ambiguity and human fallibility. But the Holy Spirit still guides the Church always through it’s hierarchy, despite the fact that humans are imperfect in their interpretation and implementation of Church documents, dogmas, scriputre, etc… So what is the Holy Spirit saying now, through Mother Church? Could it be that the challenge of our time is not cith and emhc and ad orientem and Latin, just maybe the challenge of our age is OBEDIENCE?

God is still in charge of the Church, through his ministers. We owe the Church our full obedience and reverence, nothing less, as Christ showed us obedience to the Father in the face of the ultimate error and injustice… You know when the Church is in error? When the Church says it is in error. Good luck waiting for acknowlegement of your “errors”. Pack a lunch cause you’re in for a long trip.

Many saints have shown us through the Catholic Tradition that loving obedience is the only course of action, even in the face of cruelty and “errors”. Read the diary of St Faustina for starters. Her personal opinions and tastes, and looking for errors in the Church, were the last thing on her mind.

The hierarchy are not exempt from obedience.
And the things you mentioned came out of disobedience.
Like a very Holy elderly Priest (he passed away at 90.) said to me once “Show me in the documents where it says that!”

 

[CesarAugustus]

One of the issues, is that some groups, institutes, theologians, Priests, Bishops can get away with their heterodoxy and heteropraxis, while there is a ongoing suspicion on Traditionalists, be it FSSPX or regularized ones.

Blessings!

 

[clem456]

The hierarchy are not exempt from obedience.
And the things you mentioned came out of disobedience.
Like a very Holy elderly Priest (he passed away at 90.) said to me once “Show me in the documents where it says that!”

So I guess we all have choice top make, don’t we. To be obedient, or not to be, that is a huge question for the Catholic. **The disobedience of other individuals does not exempt other Catholics from obedience. **The onus is on the individual conscience to be lovingly obedient, or to go looking for errors.

 

[jam070406]

So I guess we all have choice top make, don’t we. To be obedient, or not to be, that is a huge question for the Catholic. **The disobedience of other individuals does not exempt other Catholics from obedience. **The onus is on the individual conscience to be lovingly obedient, or to go looking for errors.

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.

 

[triumphguy]

I guess this is directed at me. Review my words here:

Abp. DiNoia himself acknowledges this in the article you forward along, when he says that parts of Vatican II documents are “imprecise.” Again, God did not promise “You’ll teach everything perfectly all the time.” He simply promised He would not let us teach falsehood. There’s a whole range of values between teaching falsehood and teaching the entire truth as perfectly as possible. There’s no guarantee we’ll have the latter, just a guarantee we won’t have the former, which doesn’t preclude the possibility of ambiguity, imprecision, etc.

There’s an attitude that man really isn’t at the wheel here so the Church cannot possibly do anything wrong, even the little stuff. Well, maybe man’s not at the wheel and God is, but man’s certainly a copilot, and a copilot can do a lot to screw up a flight. (Let’s keep building that metaphor: the pilot is talented enough that He’ll touch the plane down on the runway no matter how inattentive, imprecise, etc., his copilot is, but the crappiness of the copilot means the flight’s going to take longer, it’s going to be extremely turbulent, the people will be terrified and maybe some will die of heart attacks from all the swooping and flipping, etc.).

What I’m saying are errors are the strategies the conciliar and postconciliar Church adopted for dealing with modernity. They were errors in judgment – the wrong choices of strategy (at least I think; a friend of mine has a very convincing argument that Vatican II was exactly what the church needed, though conciliar enthusiasts would not much enjoy hearing that argument). This doesn’t put me out of communion with the Church because the Church itself doesn’t teach that it will always make the optimal choice 100% of the time, and if you think it does, then you are in the very awkward position of thinking that Vatican finances are A-OK or that it handled the sex abuse cases just fine. Nor does it entail disobedience on my part. I may not the like the mess but I do my required part in it, even as I work within my station to repair it (e.g., volunteering to teach RCIA classes).

No, it wasn’t directed at you…

but I’ll read your post anyway

… 5 minutes later

I agree with much of what you say, however, the way the Church deals with finances or abuse are not doctrinal affairs.

 

[clem456]

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.

Obedience belongs to the Church, not a cultural offshoot of the Church. It is not a matter of taste between tradition or what you opine to be “novelties”.

 

[jam070406]

Obedience belongs to the Church, not a cultural offshoot of the Church. It is not a matter of taste between tradition or what you opine to be “novelties”.

I didn’t make this about you. Don’t make it about me.

 

[clem456]

I didn’t make this about you. Don’t make it about me.

I’m commenting on what you said, not going off into irrelevant territory. This is what you said:

""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. “”

And this is my response:
Obedience belongs to the Church, not a cultural offshoot of the Church. It is not a matter of taste between tradition or what you opine to be “novelties”.

 

[OurBeloved]

Obedience belongs to the Church, not a cultural offshoot of the Church. It is not a matter of taste between tradition or what you opine to be “novelties”.

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.

 

[jam070406]

I’m commenting on what you said, not going off into irrelevant territory. This is what you said:

""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. “”

And this is my response:
Obedience belongs to the Church, not a cultural offshoot of the Church. It is not a matter of taste between tradition or what you opine to be “novelties”.

I’m speaking as someone looking from afar. I don’t opine for anything.
If you didn’t mean me personally then I apologize. As I can now see I took it alittle too personal. Sorry.

 

[sw85]

There is a good talk by Robert Sungenis that can be found on YouTube.
It’s called “Was God behind the ambiguities of Vatican II?”
He unpacks it all quite well.

I found it on YouTube and bookmarked it for when I have time later. Thanks for the reference!

For you.

You like Latin and cassocks. That’s how you like to sensually experience the faith. These things are just as important to you on a psychological level as the Sacraments are to your soul.

These things are important to you, and you are projecting your desire for identity through them onto others, and that isn’t fair. These things are your preferences.

I have experienced my faith, and recieved my identity as a Christian and as a Catholic through the crucible of half a century of living my life, not yours - my eyes and my ears, the death of my family members, birth of my children, the moral sense of scripture as it applies to my personal situation and the everyday struggles in my life.

They are a little bit more than “preferences,” and I think it’s disingenuous to basically denigrate a millennium or more of cultural tradition as if it were little more than an issue of Coke vs. Pepsi, on the grounds of “I don’t like it.”

The simple fact is this: this stuff – bells and vestments and chanting and Latin and tall towers and statues and flowers and art and paintings and kneeling and stained-glass and so on – worked. For centuries. They weren’t irrational choices. They developed organically from a religion that sought to present to the senses certain soteriological and ontological truths. We built our chuches high and tall and ornate to draw the eye up toward Heaven. We filled them with statues to commemorate the saints. We made them beautiful so that we could rejoice in beholding that which was holy. The priest wore ornate vestments and spoke in Latin toward the altar as a sign of the ontological superiority of the priesthood – to represent the fact that we were looking into something really quite private and remarkable and mysterious: the pleading of Christ (in the form of the priest) at the right hand of the Father for all of us. And so on and so on and so on.

Again, none of these things were arbitrary. They were intended to represent (literally, to re-present to the senses, in an intelligible way) the truths of the Catholic faith. If these things didn’t work for some people, it’s because their sensibilities were deficient.

And again, this stuff worked for centuries. When we abandoned it and started building churches that looked like prisons or parking garages, when our priests forgot Latin and started dressing in bland ponchos, when catechesis turned stupid or even actively pernicious, when the Mass started looking more like a pep rally and less like a sacrifice, when the Church embraced obscurantism instead of clarity, etc., everything fell apart. People abandoned the faith in droves, either formally or functionally. Those who remained were basically on their own in terms of passing the faith on to their children, and we now know very few of them were up to the task – the present generation of Catholics is astoundingly disobedient and mired in mortal sins unimaginable even two or three generations ago.

So clearly it’s not just that they worked only for YTC. They worked for lots and lots of people, and the present messy arrangement in words and aesthetics and liturgy alike are not working. So why does the Church owe it to you to validate your personal prejudices at the expense of its own traditions and, clearly, at the expense of souls?

As you say life is full of ambiguity and human fallibility. But the Holy Spirit still guides the Church always through it’s hierarchy, despite the fact that humans are imperfect in their interpretation and implementation of Church documents, dogmas, scriputre, etc… So what is the Holy Spirit saying now, through Mother Church? Could it be that the challenge of our time is not cith and emhc and ad orientem and Latin, just maybe the challenge of our age is OBEDIENCE?

God is still in charge of the Church, through his ministers. We owe the Church our full obedience and reverence, nothing less, as Christ showed us obedience to the Father in the face of the ultimate error and injustice… You know when the Church is in error? When the Church says it is in error. Good luck waiting for acknowlegement of your “errors”. Pack a lunch cause you’re in for a long trip.

Many saints have shown us through the Catholic Tradition that loving obedience is the only course of action, even in the face of cruelty and “errors”. Read the diary of St Faustina for starters. Her personal opinions and tastes, and looking for errors in the Church, were the last thing on her mind.

Wait, I’m not altogether sure what you’re saying here, and your tone is raising flags in my mind. Are you accusing me of disobedience to the Magisterium?

No, it wasn’t directed at you…

OK – glad we cleared that up!

I agree with much of what you say, however, the way the Church deals with finances or abuse are not doctrinal affairs.

Yes, that’s my point. And likewise I’m saying that the way the Church elected to confront modernity is also not a doctrinal affair and so not protected from error.

Liturgy, beyond a certain point, isn’t doctrinal. Church architecture isn’t doctrinal. The text of rites of blessing or exorcism aren’t doctrinal. And so on. These things simply *reflect *doctrine. They may reflect doctrine better or worse. When they reflect doctrine poorly, bad things happen. People who don’t know the doctrine take the things which reflect them as signs that doctrine is different from what it is. That’s what I’m saying happened.

 

[clem456]

I think you are underestimating the problem here.

 

[jam070406]

I found it on YouTube and bookmarked it for when I have time later. Thanks for the reference!

They are a little bit more than “preferences,” and I think it’s disingenuous to basically denigrate a millennium or more of cultural tradition as if it were little more than an issue of Coke vs. Pepsi, on the grounds of “I don’t like it.”

The simple fact is this: this stuff – bells and vestments and chanting and Latin and tall towers and statues and flowers and art and paintings and kneeling and stained-glass and so on – worked. For centuries. They weren’t irrational choices. They developed organically from a religion that sought to present to the senses certain soteriological and ontological truths. We built our chuches high and tall and ornate to draw the eye up toward Heaven. We filled them with statues to commemorate the saints. We made them beautiful so that we could rejoice in beholding that which was holy. The priest wore ornate vestments and spoke in Latin toward the altar as a sign of the ontological superiority of the priesthood – to represent the fact that we were looking into something really quite private and remarkable and mysterious: the pleading of Christ (in the form of the priest) at the right hand of the Father for all of us. And so on and so on and so on.

Again, none of these things were arbitrary. They were intended to represent (literally, to re-present to the senses, in an intelligible way) the truths of the Catholic faith. If these things didn’t work for some people, it’s because their sensibilities were deficient.

And again, this stuff worked for centuries. When we abandoned it and started building churches that looked like prisons or parking garages, when our priests forgot Latin and started dressing in bland ponchos, when catechesis turned stupid or even actively pernicious, when the Mass started looking more like a pep rally and less like a sacrifice, when the Church embraced obscurantism instead of clarity, etc., everything fell apart. People abandoned the faith in droves, either formally or functionally. Those who remained were basically on their own in terms of passing the faith on to their children, and we now know very few of them were up to the task – the present generation of Catholics is astoundingly disobedient and mired in mortal sins unimaginable even two or three generations ago.

So clearly it’s not just that they worked only for YTC. They worked for lots and lots of people, and the present messy arrangement in words and aesthetics and liturgy alike are not working. So why does the Church owe it to you to validate your personal prejudices at the expense of its own traditions and, clearly, at the expense of souls?

Wait, I’m not altogether sure what you’re saying here, and your tone is raising flags in my mind. Are you accusing me of disobedience to the Magisterium?

OK – glad we cleared that up!

Yes, that’s my point. And likewise I’m saying that the way the Church elected to confront modernity is also not a doctrinal affair and so not protected from error.

Liturgy, beyond a certain point, isn’t doctrinal. Church architecture isn’t doctrinal. The text of rites of blessing or exorcism aren’t doctrinal. And so on. These things simply *reflect *doctrine. They may reflect doctrine better or worse. When they reflect doctrine poorly, bad things happen. People who don’t know the doctrine take the things which reflect them as signs that doctrine is different from what it is. That’s what I’m saying happened.

Excellent post!

 

[jam070406]

OurBeloved;9491207:

Yet there is good solid teaching available all over the internet, it is linked and pasted on this forum, and still people persist in blaming V2 for the Church’s problems, directly or indirectly. Much of this argument is plainly cultural on both sides. People become comfortable with traditional forms and others want to radically change them, both with little regard for the Church. As an aside I have never met a priest who misrepresented Church teaching somehow.

Really the issue is not that a few stray priests go off, it’s personal obstinance about one’s culture and comfort zone. You see the same thing in politics. V2 is an easy scapegoat because it is challenging.

You can’t blame complex theology for confusing people who barely read it! The Holy Spirit speaks through V2’s ambiguous language. Why don’t we just assume that fact, rather than obstinately looking for problems. The Holy Spirit is speaking, who is quiet enough to hear it?

The priciples are timeless and changeless. You don’t go back to them, they simply ARE, just as God says in the OT, “I am”. Now, here, today, always, tomorrow included. The Church expresses them, we obey.

The Church has full authority to correct abuses, and I suppose is doing it as we speak, I don’t know, that knowlege is above my pay scale.It certainly is waiting for some societies to correct themselves. All the information is available as to what V2 teachies andwhat it doesn’t. But yet the hand wringing and blaming continues.

Clem, because the people have been fed bad theology based on bad interpretation for years under the guise of VII. It’s a reality. And the Vatican has been admitting as much.

 

[OurBeloved]

Yet there is good solid teaching available all over the internet, it is linked and pasted on this forum, and still people persist in blaming V2 for the Church’s problems, directly or indirectly. Much of this argument is plainly cultural on both sides. People become comfortable with traditional forms and others want to radically change them, both with little regard for the Church. As an aside I have never met a priest who misrepresented Church teaching somehow.

So how does one know that they should read the church teaching on the EWTN site as opposed to the church teaching on lets say the SSPX site? What you are saying doesn’t make much sense. In the end, what you would have to appeal to first principles of being Catholic. As I said before, the average Catholic doesn’t know HOW they would specifically arrive to be Catholic if they were an atheist.

You also have to understand that culture does not merely exist. It comes in to being after centuries of humans trying to live a way of life. Culture facilitates such a way of living. If you throw away the culture, you also make it difficult for yourself to live the life it supported.

As for your personal experience, that is your experience vs. mine. I have had the misfortune of meeting many priests who teach contrary to the church.

Really the issue is not that a few stray priests go off, it’s personal obstinance about one’s culture and comfort zone. You see the same thing in politics. V2 is an easy scapegoat because it is challenging.

First, you have to really explain by what you mean as “few”. As far as I can see, there are “many”.

Second, you are somehow confused that culture simply comes in to existence.

You can’t blame complex theology for confusing people who barely read it! The Holy Spirit speaks through V2’s ambiguous language. Why don’t we just assume that fact, rather than obstinately looking for problems. The Holy Spirit is speaking, who is quiet enough to hear it?

I can assure you, some of the folk in the pews of SSPX are probably more well read than you on Vatican II just as much as the Protestant is well read in Scripture compared to the average Catholic. The problem is by no means due to lack of reading.

Are you going to claim that the reason why a Protestant is not Catholic is because he or she doesn’t read Scripture and doesn’t listen to the Holy Spirit?

The priciples are timeless and changeless. You don’t go back to them, they simply ARE, just as God says in the OT, “I am”. Now, here, today, always, tomorrow included. The Church expresses them, we obey.

No one said that they changed. But people have to discover it.

The Church has full authority to correct abuses, and I suppose is doing it as we speak, I don’t know, that knowlege is above my pay scale.It certainly is waiting for some societies to correct themselves. All the information is available as to what V2 teachies andwhat it doesn’t. But yet the hand wringing and blaming continues.

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?

 

[triumphguy]

I found it on YouTube and bookmarked it for when I have time later. Thanks for the reference!

They are a little bit more than “preferences,” and I think it’s disingenuous to basically denigrate a millennium or more of cultural tradition as if it were little more than an issue of Coke vs. Pepsi, on the grounds of “I don’t like it.”

The simple fact is this: this stuff – bells and vestments and chanting and Latin and tall towers and statues and flowers and art and paintings and kneeling and stained-glass and so on – worked. For centuries. They weren’t irrational choices. They developed organically from a religion that sought to present to the senses certain soteriological and ontological truths. We built our chuches high and tall and ornate to draw the eye up toward Heaven. We filled them with statues to commemorate the saints. We made them beautiful so that we could rejoice in beholding that which was holy. The priest wore ornate vestments and spoke in Latin toward the altar as a sign of the ontological superiority of the priesthood – to represent the fact that we were looking into something really quite private and remarkable and mysterious: the pleading of Christ (in the form of the priest) at the right hand of the Father for all of us. And so on and so on and so on.

Again, none of these things were arbitrary. They were intended to represent (literally, to re-present to the senses, in an intelligible way) the truths of the Catholic faith. If these things didn’t work for some people, it’s because their sensibilities were deficient.

And again, this stuff worked for centuries. When we abandoned it and started building churches that looked like prisons or parking garages, when our priests forgot Latin and started dressing in bland ponchos, when catechesis turned stupid or even actively pernicious, when the Mass started looking more like a pep rally and less like a sacrifice, when the Church embraced obscurantism instead of clarity, etc., everything fell apart. People abandoned the faith in droves, either formally or functionally. Those who remained were basically on their own in terms of passing the faith on to their children, and we now know very few of them were up to the task – the present generation of Catholics is astoundingly disobedient and mired in mortal sins unimaginable even two or three generations ago.

So clearly it’s not just that they worked only for YTC. They worked for lots and lots of people, and the present messy arrangement in words and aesthetics and liturgy alike are not working. So why does the Church owe it to you to validate your personal prejudices at the expense of its own traditions and, clearly, at the expense of souls?

Wait, I’m not altogether sure what you’re saying here, and your tone is raising flags in my mind. Are you accusing me of disobedience to the Magisterium?

OK – glad we cleared that up!

Yes, that’s my point. And likewise I’m saying that the way the Church elected to confront modernity is also not a doctrinal affair and so not protected from error.

Liturgy, beyond a certain point, isn’t doctrinal. Church architecture isn’t doctrinal. The text of rites of blessing or exorcism aren’t doctrinal. And so on. These things simply *reflect *doctrine. They may reflect doctrine better or worse. When they reflect doctrine poorly, bad things happen. People who don’t know the doctrine take the things which reflect them as signs that doctrine is different from what it is. That’s what I’m saying happened.

Again I agree with you!

I’m kidding about the

 

[clem456]

Wait, I’m not altogether sure what you’re saying here, and your tone is raising flags in my mind. Are you accusing me of disobedience to the Magisterium?

.

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?