Wanting to understand the pre-Vatican II Church

[Brennan_Doherty]

Brennan,
I think you make very good points and they seem to be a legitimate and defensable way to look at the situation.
It’s true also that some may not have a leg to stand on, but it’s my concern that Mr. Ferrara thinks that winning this argument is a way to score some points or something like that – it’s what lawyers want to do in court.
But I don’t agree that he’s winning the argument, even if that was worth doing (and I don’t think that it is).
We can see, over time, that some things are allowed in the OF and some things are not. The rubrics have changed since 1969 and it’s my belief that they will continue to be refined. We can’t merely say that “the official stamp” was placed on everything that happened later either. We can decide about what the Council “allowed” by how it is interpreted later. The interpreters (the Pope and Magisterium) determine what the Council allowed by what was intended. The Council should be read “in light of the tradition” of the Church.
So, I don’t agree that looking for loopholes – as Mr. Ferrara has done – really offers any benefit. Nobody is free to interpret the Council on his own. The directives were given in a spirit of trust – with the belief that self-styled liturgists would not abuse that freedom.

We know it didn’t happen that way. For me, the bigger, more important and more relevant questions are why it happened that way.

Hi Reggie,

I posted the article (which I assume you’ve read) simply because what the author writes is true and makes sense. And of course, he’s not the only one who has said similar things about the Council documents which were certainly written in a different style than previous Church Councils (I don’t think anyone disputes that).

I agree, again, that it was the commission appointed by Pope Paul VI with his final approval which had the job of revising the liturgy. Now one might argue that the Bishops might have been somewhat naive in thinking that there was no real possibility for the liturgy to be altered as much as it was. I can hardly blame them, I don’t think they had any idea they were going to get the massive changes they did get. As I recall, one Bishop did warn prior to the end of the Council that Heaven help us if the periti which helped draft the documents would be the same people who would have a strong hand in interpreting and implementing them after the Council. And that’s apparently what happened.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Ed,

Excellent summary and I agree.

I hope I haven’t sold-short the influence of evil forces and our Enemy. I do agree with the concerns that many have that by letting our guard down, sinful intentions by Modernists and others were hard to stop.

This brings me back to loopholes and conspiracies.

Some will suggest that a master plan by Satan, rather than attacking the Church directly (which has happened many times already), was to create weak norms which could easily be exploited by unscrupulous churchmen. Then, the faithful would not see the problem until a lot of damage was done.

I have heard some say that the elimination of the prayers after Mass (especially the St. Michael’s prayer) caused evil to spread in the Church.

I can see the logic and attractiveness of that view. It points to Satan as the author of the conspiracy with evil-doers working with him. It’s also very difficult to disprove this idea fully since it references Satanic influence which we can’t see directly.

My objection to this view is in how it understands the power of God and His direction of the Church through indefectability and protection of the Truth.

In this case, we have Satan taking the prominent role in the Church and basically doing what he wants. He inspires traitorious bishops to write documents which will damage the work of Christ later. But the problem, as I see it, is that God is rendered as very weak and virtually absent in His Church. He is not running the show, so to speak. The faithful are completely at the mercy of Satan – and the situation is hopeless. I can’t accept that.

Along with this view is that a return to the pre-Conciliar era will bring God back into the Church to start running it again. Along with this is the belief that the change of prayers and rituals has caused God to go away and if we bring them back, God will return to help His Church again.

As I pointed out before though, the documents were written while the Tridentine Mass was in effect. So, God supposedly left His Church before any changes were made.

The other problem I see with this is that we should not expect any improvement at all in the Church until the pre-Conciliar era is restated – since Satan is basically running things now.

But having lived through the craziest period of change in the 1970s, I can say fully that the situation is far better now. I look at CA and EWTN, for example as two major apostolates which have done immense good (we benefit from CAF this very day).

I find the 1994 Catechism to be a tremendous document - unmatched in the pre-Concilar era as an official statement of doctrine. Converts are entering the Church. Why doesn’t Satan stop that? (Or why doesn’t God forbid it since supposedly we don’t have the right prayers?)

I’m not trying to say that everything is fine today - or that we were totally wrong in the past.

I think the situation is complex and historians will have alot of work to sort it out in the future – but we’re still living through the flux and change so it’s hard to see fixed points.

Hi Reggie,

I essentially agree with the way the four groups of people look at the Council that you posted above. However, I can’t agree completely with what you’ve posted here (at least from a traditionalist perspective). It is certainly not the view of many traditionalists or myself that God left the Church and is staying away until the pre-conciliar era is reinstated. Certainly we believe the Gregorian rite is superior to the Novus Ordo and the Church would be better off the more it is widespread. But this does not mean Satan is now in control of the Church. God is still drawing people to His Church which is why we will always see converts (though I think the loss of the transcendent and sacred in much of our liturgy has not helped in the least to bring people in).

I am reminded of a quote from Hilaire Belloc that the Church is “an institute run with such knavish imbecility that if it were not the work of God it would not last a fortnight.”

The Church is indefectible. She will never teach error in Faith and Morals. God sometimes uses the devil, or persecution, or other means to ultimately bring about good. I am reminded of when the Israelites complained about eating manna and they wanted meat. So God let them eat quail until they were stuffed. He didn’t prevent them from making a mistake but He did allow them to learn a hard lesson.

And of course the members of the Church (not the Church as a divine institution) can sometimes make bad prudential decisions which affect millions of Catholics through pride, stupdity, etc. There’s often plenty of that without saying Satan is in control (although I do believe Satan is always trying to undermine the Church,–why wouldn’t he?)

 

[otjm]

I’d like to piggyback off of jp72’s initial post. I was born in 1961 and really have no proper memory of the pre-Vatican II Church. I have a few questions as will.

1. What were the instances of liturgical abuse in the pre-Vatican II Church?

At the risk of tripping brotherolf’s trigger, The instances of liturgical abuse were much less prevalent before the change in the Mass than they were after. However, The presumption that all Masses were said slow and reverently simply was not an absolute. I grew up, and served as an altar boy for an Irish priest who was a flaming drunk. He was not drunk all the time, but there were times that I would end up on the "early"list - the 6:30 a.m. Mass and he would come in lit up like a Christmas tree. Mas was well under 20 minutes then. He was also capable, sober, of great pomp and circumstance; The Masses at Christmas and easter were Solemn High Masses, witht he two assistant pastors in the roles of Deacon and Sub Deacon and all the stops got pulled out. Both of my brothers as well as I suffered through his drinking and the lightening fast early Mass; my youngest brother swears tot his day that Father could say Latin breathing in as well as breathing out.

But if there was any abuse, it was much less obvious. there were good priests and not so good priests, and some were very pious and reverent and some not so. Human nature did not change with Vatican 2 (although many, including myself would say that it has become more corrupt on the whole).

1. Was the pre-Vatican II Church beset with just as much modernism and liberalism as we see today?

Where do you think they came from, under a rock? The expression of what you call modernism and liberalism (and unless they are defined, they are essentially meaningless terms) certainly was not as public and widespread before. But the problems that came from Loisy, for example, certainly made their way through the seminaries (not all, and not at all times) and other areas of higher education. It was far more confined to academia than the parish.

And off-topic, but relevant to the issue is that a large number of the sexually abusive priests we have had were ordained before Vatican 2; the first one convicted in our diocese was a priest well before V2; he was convicted in the 80’s. Proble,s in the Church did not start with V2; but they sure took a turn there in variety.

1. Do traditional Catholics today resemble the same Catholics of the pre-Vatican II Church?

From my observation, no. Catholics were not anywhere near as educated about their faith then as they are now. And before you go off on that, let me qualify: those Catholics who are seeking out what is termed “Traditional” Catholicism are for the most part better educated about the faith than Catholics were in the 50’s and early 60’s. To begin with, far more of them are college educated; one needs to remember that it was the GI Bill after WW2 that opened up the flood gates to college. Now it is a given; then it most certainly wasn’t. There are far more colleges in existence now than then.

In addition, information is far more widely available. We have a Catechism that is far more complete than before; most people were only exposed to the Baltimore Catechism, and while that was very effective in teaching basic doctrine, it was not designed for adults or young adults. There has been an explosion in biblical studies for laity; that simply did not exist before. People are more engaged in their faith than then.

And I say that because the vast majority of people did not know Latin; the Mass before V2 did not have responses from the faithful. They could obtain a missal with a translation, but they had to buy one and the majority of people did not have one.

And faith was often seen as a set of rules; and the attitude generally was one of defining the rules quite clearly - to give an example: How late can I come to Mass, and how early can I leave and still fulfill my obligation? That question was typical of how all too many people approached the Mass; as an obligation, not as a privilege of participation.

Yes, Mass attendance was far higher - about twice what it is now. However, it is presumptious to pretend that people were all agog at the Mass. Some had a clue; some had a pew. And before someone attacks that statement, review what Christ said about “spiting out the lukewarm”. Then have at it.

 

[otjm]

I am interested too and was born post Vatican2 as well it seems.

Can someone please post a link or an explanation regarding WHAT exactly WAS Vatican2 and why it happened? I can guess the Latin Mass was left behind but why? and what else occurred and changed?

I would appreciate it - I always wanted to ask this question. thank you

I would suggest that you might want to actually read the documents. there is a whole lot of discussion of the documents in various places, all too often by people who have never actaully read them.

 

[otjm]

Yes but many of these priests were silenced by the Holy Office in the 1950s when Pius XII was still in charge

Some were. Some were not. And there has been much discussion of whether the Holy Office succeeded in making things worse rather than better.

 

[reggieM]

And of course the members of the Church (not the Church as a divine institution) can sometimes make bad prudential decisions which affect millions of Catholics through pride, stupdity, etc. There’s often plenty of that without saying Satan is in control (although I do believe Satan is always trying to undermine the Church,–why wouldn’t he?)

Brennan – those are very good points and I agree.
My concern was probably exaggerated by saying that Satan is in control – but I was pointing to the struggle between Satan and Heaven within the Church, and how we might view that.
How much control and directive-power does God have in the Church, versus that which Satan has?

If we take the Belloc comment as a starting point (and I think it’s a great quote), then we have mismanagement and bad decisions, and even some unscrupulous leaders at times. But no matter, these do not destroy the work of God.

Can we say that God actually uses these bad prudential decisions and knavish imbecility to achieve good ends?

That’s the paradox here and I think Belloc points to it. We see the human problems but conclude that the Church is “the work of God”, as he says.

 

[edwest2]

At the risk of tripping brotherolf’s trigger, The instances of liturgical abuse were much less prevalent before the change in the Mass than they were after. However, The presumption that all Masses were said slow and reverently simply was not an absolute. I grew up, and served as an altar boy for an Irish priest who was a flaming drunk. He was not drunk all the time, but there were times that I would end up on the "early"list - the 6:30 a.m. Mass and he would come in lit up like a Christmas tree. Mas was well under 20 minutes then. He was also capable, sober, of great pomp and circumstance; The Masses at Christmas and easter were Solemn High Masses, witht he two assistant pastors in the roles of Deacon and Sub Deacon and all the stops got pulled out. Both of my brothers as well as I suffered through his drinking and the lightening fast early Mass; my youngest brother swears tot his day that Father could say Latin breathing in as well as breathing out.

But if there was any abuse, it was much less obvious. there were good priests and not so good priests, and some were very pious and reverent and some not so. Human nature did not change with Vatican 2 (although many, including myself would say that it has become more corrupt on the whole).
Where do you think they came from, under a rock? The expression of what you call modernism and liberalism (and unless they are defined, they are essentially meaningless terms) certainly was not as public and widespread before. But the problems that came from Loisy, for example, certainly made their way through the seminaries (not all, and not at all times) and other areas of higher education. It was far more confined to academia than the parish.

And off-topic, but relevant to the issue is that a large number of the sexually abusive priests we have had were ordained before Vatican 2; the first one convicted in our diocese was a priest well before V2; he was convicted in the 80’s. Proble,s in the Church did not start with V2; but they sure took a turn there in variety.
From my observation, no. Catholics were not anywhere near as educated about their faith then as they are now. And before you go off on that, let me qualify: those Catholics who are seeking out what is termed “Traditional” Catholicism are for the most part better educated about the faith than Catholics were in the 50’s and early 60’s. To begin with, far more of them are college educated; one needs to remember that it was the GI Bill after WW2 that opened up the flood gates to college. Now it is a given; then it most certainly wasn’t. There are far more colleges in existence now than then.

In addition, information is far more widely available. We have a Catechism that is far more complete than before; most people were only exposed to the Baltimore Catechism, and while that was very effective in teaching basic doctrine, it was not designed for adults or young adults. There has been an explosion in biblical studies for laity; that simply did not exist before. People are more engaged in their faith than then.

And I say that because the vast majority of people did not know Latin; the Mass before V2 did not have responses from the faithful. They could obtain a missal with a translation, but they had to buy one and the majority of people did not have one.

And faith was often seen as a set of rules; and the attitude generally was one of defining the rules quite clearly - to give an example: How late can I come to Mass, and how early can I leave and still fulfill my obligation? That question was typical of how all too many people approached the Mass; as an obligation, not as a privilege of participation.

Yes, Mass attendance was far higher - about twice what it is now. However, it is presumptious to pretend that people were all agog at the Mass. Some had a clue; some had a pew. And before someone attacks that statement, review what Christ said about “spiting out the lukewarm”. Then have at it.

Having been there, you are mistaken in several places. Mass attendance was higher than now. Most people I knew in Catholic school at the time, viewed going to Mass as a privilege and reverenced God, only a handful were interested in putting in their hour and punching their time card on the button so they could run out.

We had Religion Class. It was all explained to us. Not just the rules but the reality of God and how much He loved us. Job one was to love our neighbors as ourselves.

We sure did have responses at Mass. I remember them today. Latin was taught in our Catholic school. Translations were not $10 or $20.

From what I’m hearing on Catholic Radio and reading in the Michigan Catholic and Our Sunday Visitor, there is no explosion of information that is actually reaching people. In fact, too many Catholics today are poorly Catechized and even older Catholics have been ‘persuaded away’ from truths the Church has always taught and have not changed.

It’s good to hear there are more Biblical studies but I want to emphasize, we had an entire class devoted to studying our religion and how it applied to the world around us. It’s one thing to go to Church every Sunday and Holy Days, but it means little if none of what you hear is practiced in your everyday life.

I don’t think having a college education matters much one way or the other. In fact, today, it is difficult to find a Catholic college that is actually Catholic, not the watered down version. More colleges in existence now than then? When do you think most of them were built? There was no explosion in Catholic college building.

Please, check you information before posting.

Respectfully,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Brennan – those are very good points and I agree.
My concern was probably exaggerated by saying that Satan is in control – but I was pointing to the struggle between Satan and Heaven within the Church, and how we might view that.
How much control and directive-power does God have in the Church, versus that which Satan has?

If we take the Belloc comment as a starting point (and I think it’s a great quote), then we have mismanagement and bad decisions, and even some unscrupulous leaders at times. But no matter, these do not destroy the work of God.

Can we say that God actually uses these bad prudential decisions and knavish imbecility to achieve good ends?

That’s the paradox here and I think Belloc points to it. We see the human problems but conclude that the Church is “the work of God”, as he says.

I’m a little surprised that you haven’t looked at previous heresies in the Church with similar alarm. Those heresies lasted a long time in some cases.

I think the way to look at it is this: the devil, like a team of men trying to breach the walls of a castle, takes his battering ram, and at the slightest sign of weakness or opportunity, charges ahead.

What was the advice given to Timothy? Be sober, be vigilant?

God knows what is going to happen before it happens. However, unlike some who might think that God has left us back in Biblical times, hasn’t He sent His mother to warn us? At Fatima? And Lourdes? And Guadalupe?

What did Our Lady say about the conversion of Russia? And how long did it take for that to play out? To this day, there are people who get together in a certain part of Detroit to pray for the world. For decades, Russia was at the top of the list. How long were the Israelites captives in Egypt, praying to God for deliverance?

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

True. We see victories for the Church. Those have happened. Will they stop now?
I say “no”. God continues to use His power to overcome evil.
We have to be vigilant, we have to pray. But we also have to trust in God’s power.

 

[Malleus_01]

<<< True. We see victories for the Church. Those have happened. Will they stop now?
I say “no”. God continues to use His power to overcome evil.
We have to be vigilant, we have to pray. But we also have to trust in God’s power. >>>>

I find that most people today ask the rhetorical question - “How could GOD leave us all to the Mercy of Heretics” or perhaps - we know that the Church shall never be conquered by Satan and will always teach only the truth for Our Lord promised us so. Others are comforted by a false sense of security but have they in fact misinterpreted what is meant by those things? Consider the following:

The Church has successfully evangelized the Entire Planet. This was accomplished by the late 1800’s.

Modernism was already well rooted in the Church by then.

So the Members of the Church cannot claim they do not know Catholic Truth. For those who say otherwise - Romans :

1:16. For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth: to the Jew first and to the Greek.

1:17. For the justice of God is revealed therein, from faith unto faith, as it is written: The just man liveth by faith.

1:18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice:

1:19. Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them.

1:20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. His eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

1:21. Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God or given thanks: but became vain in their thoughts. And their foolish heart was darkened.

1:22. For, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

And in addition to that passage :

2 Thessalonians Chapter 2

2:1. And we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and of our gathering together unto him:

2:2. That you be not easily moved from your sense nor be terrified, neither by spirit nor by word nor by epistle. as sent from us, as if the day of the Lord were at hand.

2:3. Let no man deceive you by any means: for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition

2:4. Who opposeth and is lifted up above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God.

2:5. Remember you not that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

2:6. And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time.

2:7. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh: only that he who now holdeth do hold, until he be taken out of the way.

2:8. And then that wicked one shall be revealed: whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: him

2:9. Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power and signs and lying wonders:

2:10. And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish: because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:

2:11. That all may be judged who have not believed the truth but have consented to iniquity.

2:12. But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved of God, for that God hath chosen you firstfruits unto salvation, in sanctification of the spirit and faith of the truth:

2:13. Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2:14. Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

2:15. Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hath loved us and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope in grace,

2:16. Exhort your hearts and confirm you in every good work and word.

The Scriptures teach us that WE are to be the ones to Believe and Worship correctly in Divine Tradition because we can not always TRUST those who claim to hold Ecclesiastic Office. GOD Himself will send us the Operation of Error for those of us who do not Detain HIS TRUTH but who instead rely on False Shepherds instead of GOD himself. For GOD has given us POPE after POPE after POPE many of whom are SAINTS - all the Saints - all the Doctors all the Apologists so that the Deposit of Faith now transcends time. The Seven Sacraments were given by the LORD Himself. Who can “change” them. Holy Scripture by St Jerome - Who can change it? Are we to say we didnt know the TRUTH just because novelty is alive in this day and age? Why is this novelty alive and well - to bring us a greater love of GOD or is the LOVE of the TRUTHS of GOD not sufficient to begin with and thus a crisis of our own Faith instead?

I submit that the TRUTH is all around us. That a Love of that Truth is in order. Quit waiting for GOD to save you - take up your Cross and follow. As St Paul said - Work out your salvation in fear and trembling. Our salvation lies in our own recognition that we must subjugate our will to the will of GOD - not the reverse. When you find the True Faith this becomes self evident.

pax

 

[otjm]

I would like to thank all who posted in reference to my thoughts.Nice to know I’m not the only one who thinks this way. But in post 106 the part about what Mother Teresa thought about CITH, I have no idea! Please don’t keep me in suspense, because it would take me forever to find this on my own! Call me lazy.

A priest who had spent time with Mother Theresa said that she made the comment about CITH. He subsequently stated publicly that she had not made that statement, and apologized for attributing it to her. It has all of the strength of most urban legends and continues to make the rounds, even though the reporter of the alleged statement has publicly withdrawn it, stating that she made no such statement.

 

[reggieM]

Malleus - thanks for your thoughts on this.

• we know that the Church shall never be conquered by Satan and will always teach only the truth for Our Lord promised us so.

It sounds like you’re disagreeing with that point – right?

The Scriptures teach us that WE are to be the ones to Believe and Worship correctly in Divine Tradition because we can not always TRUST those who claim to hold Ecclesiastic Office.

To me, that sounds like a very subjective foundation for the Catholic Faith. We could not know for sure who is telling the truth. There would be no infallible interpreter of the Bible, no infallible doctrines to guide us. It would just be US – let’s say, you and me and other Catholics. What if we disagree?

For GOD has given us POPE after POPE after POPE many of whom are SAINTS - all the Saints - all the Doctors all the Apologists so that the Deposit of Faith now transcends time.

Yes, but this seems to go against the idea that we cannot always trust those who hold Ecclesiastical Office. If we cannot trust the Church to teach the Truth – if Christ’s promise that He would be with the Church always, and “he that hears you, hears me” – are not true, then why should we put our trust in Popes of the past? We wouldn’t know if they were saints or not. The same Church that could teach false doctrine today could have been teaching it for centuries already.

I submit that the TRUTH is all around us. That a Love of that Truth is in order … As St Paul said - Work out your salvation in fear and trembling. Our salvation lies in our own recognition that we must subjugate our will to the will of GOD - not the reverse.

I fully agree with that.

 

[otjm]

No one thinks you are a reprobate, Ed. We’re all friends here, we just don’t see eye to eye.

In your last two sentences you’ve found the sticking point in the argument between proponents of the Novis Ordo and the Tridentine Mass.

The former consider the mass a social event. The latter, like myself, see it as a chance to privately and personally experience Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.

My opinion; whatever that’s worth.

Pax vobiscum.

I have read a good deal of what the Church has written about the Mass, but not all. Perhaps you could point out where the Church teaches that the Mass is “a chance to privately and personally experience Christ’s sacrifice on the cross”; particularly in the light of St Paul, and specifically his comments on the Body of Christ? I certainly have never seen anything that states the Mass is for “privately… experienc(ing) Christ…”

 

[CradleCath]

Having been there, you are mistaken in several places. Mass attendance was higher than now. Most people I knew in Catholic school at the time, viewed going to Mass as a privilege and reverenced God, only a handful were interested in putting in their hour and punching their time card on the button so they could run out.

We had Religion Class. It was all explained to us. Not just the rules but the reality of God and how much He loved us. Job one was to love our neighbors as ourselves.

We sure did have responses at Mass. I remember them today. Latin was taught in our Catholic school. Translations were not $10 or $20.

From what I’m hearing on Catholic Radio and reading in the Michigan Catholic and Our Sunday Visitor, there is no explosion of information that is actually reaching people. In fact, too many Catholics today are poorly Catechized and even older Catholics have been ‘persuaded away’ from truths the Church has always taught and have not changed.

It’s good to hear there are more Biblical studies but I want to emphasize, we had an entire class devoted to studying our religion and how it applied to the world around us. It’s one thing to go to Church every Sunday and Holy Days, but it means little if none of what you hear is practiced in your everyday life.

I don’t think having a college education matters much one way or the other. In fact, today, it is difficult to find a Catholic college that is actually Catholic, not the watered down version. More colleges in existence now than then? When do you think most of them were built? There was no explosion in Catholic college building.

Please, check you information before posting.

Respectfully,
Ed

His bitterness is almost palpable, isn’t it?

 

[Malleus_01]

Malleus - thanks for your thoughts on this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malleus 01

• we know that the Church shall never be conquered by Satan and will always teach only the truth for Our Lord promised us so.

It sounds like you’re disagreeing with that point – right?

Mal: Not at all. But keep in mind that the Deposit of Faith is complete upon the Death of the Last Apostle - St John the Evangelist. There is no NEW revelation. When you see change or deviation from the Deposit of Faith - it is there that you find Satan. As you return to Tradition - it is there you find triumph. GOD doesnt change , nor does truth.

Quote:
The Scriptures teach us that WE are to be the ones to Believe and Worship correctly in Divine Tradition because we can not always TRUST those who claim to hold Ecclesiastic Office.

To me, that sounds like a very subjective foundation for the Catholic Faith. We could not know for sure who is telling the truth.

Mal: How so. There have been 260 TRUE POPES - 20 Ecumenical Church Councils Numerous Doctors of the Church - Saints and Theologians. And all in UNITY of Doctrine. Suddenly there comes co worship with non Catholics? We know who is telling the Truth. Find a precedent prior to Vatican II. If you can - then you have validation. If you dont - ask yourself why you dont.

There would be no infallible interpreter of the Bible, no infallible doctrines to guide us. It would just be US – let’s say, you and me and other Catholics. What if we disagree?

Mal: We have 2000 Years of Tradition in UNITY. And the Holy Ghost is promised to the Church for all time. All heresies cannot last. They pass into time. Arianism lasted 300 years and then it passed into time. GOD hasnt abandoned his church - he is trying it.
The worthy dont abandon her truths no matter what.

Quote:
For GOD has given us POPE after POPE after POPE many of whom are SAINTS - all the Saints - all the Doctors all the Apologists so that the Deposit of Faith now transcends time.

Yes, but this seems to go against the idea that we cannot always trust those who hold Ecclesiastical Office.

Mal: 35 confirmed Anti Popes prove this. And yet the Church is still here isnt it?

If we cannot trust the Church to teach the Truth – if Christ’s promise that He would be with the Church always, and “he that hears you, hears me” – are not true, then why should we put our trust in Popes of the past?

Mal: You are welcome to scrutinize each and every one of them. Our enemies do. Go ahead and see if you can find a single one of them that contradicted their predesessors in Doctrine. This alone proves that the TRUE Church is guided by the Holy Ghost.

We wouldn’t know if they were saints or not. The same Church that could teach false doctrine today could have been teaching it for centuries already.

Mal: Then if your pet theory is correct you should have little trouble proving it , correct? Have at it and we’ll see how well you do.
Quote:
I submit that the TRUTH is all around us. That a Love of that Truth is in order … As St Paul said - Work out your salvation in fear and trembling. Our salvation lies in our own recognition that we must subjugate our will to the will of GOD - not the reverse.

I fully agree with that.

 

[newearth]

Where do you think these prayers came from?

Do you think that Jesus wrote them all out before he ascended into heaven.

They have been written and changed throughout the ages.

There is nothing wrong with changing prayers.

You can blame Vatican II for all the problems in the Church if you so choose.

But the Church has been through worse times than this – and even despite those who want to return to the glory days of Catholicism – whenever that was – the Church will go one – and will continue to make a positive impact in people’s lives.

Even though many on here want you to believe otherwise.

im talking about the pryers given directly to us from jesus… that was the ptimary target. i will never ever say it other then the way he told us to… as for what you sead… about where the prayers come from… im not puting them down… its just that i will not change anything directly from jesus. or go by any other bible other then the roman catholic… i have the Douay-Rheims … if my church reads the ghospel from the king james bible i will not believe it over the true words… i dont believe anything else… thats the way i hold to what i know is true so im sorry if i offend… by my flatly disregarding any other writeing of his words. and maybe non catholics who want to join the catholic church are the same way… so… how are we leeding non catholics to the catholic church… when they believe as strongly there beliefs as catholics do to… wheres the interchange of gods words… i still think vatacan 2 was a mastake. and will cause more devision

 

[reggieM]

Malleus - thanks for your thoughts on this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malleus 01

• we know that the Church shall never be conquered by Satan and will always teach only the truth for Our Lord promised us so.

It sounds like you’re disagreeing with that point – right?

Mal: Not at all.

Ok - You accept that “the Church shall never be conquered by Satan and will always teach the truth for Our Lord promised us so.”

I think we’ve arrived at the beginning and this was the key point. I can’t see a reason to modify that De Fide dogma either.

Quote:
The Scriptures teach us that WE are to be the ones to Believe and Worship correctly in Divine Tradition because we can not always TRUST those who claim to hold Ecclesiastic Office.

To me, that sounds like a very subjective foundation for the Catholic Faith. We could not know for sure who is telling the truth.

Mal: How so. There have been 260 TRUE POPES - 20 Ecumenical Church Councils Numerous Doctors of the Church - Saints and Theologians. And all in UNITY of Doctrine.

You seem to be saying that they’re true Popes because they agreed with each other. But if they were wrong from the beginning, then they were merely united in their error.

Suddenly there comes co worship with non Catholics?

Suddenly we had the term “homoousios” added to the Deposit of Faith? Is there a precedent for that?

Mal: We have 2000 Years of Tradition in UNITY.

Two points – there have been major disagreements in the past about many doctrinal formulations. Without an infallible interpreter there would be no unity. Secondly, without an infallible interpreter, we wouldn’t know if the unity you speak of was built on falsehood or not.

All heresies cannot last.

Gnosticism has been around since the Apostolic era. So, we need a better way to separate heresy from the truth than merely our own subjective judgement.

The worthy dont abandon her truths no matter what.

How do you know that you are worthy? I am not necessarily doubting that you are. But certainly, if there is a way for you to indicate your worthiness to me, that will mean more to me because I will look for some sign of authority. Other than that, you’d be a layman offering opinions of various kinds.

35 confirmed Anti Popes prove this. And yet the Church is still here isnt it?

If you’re saying that the Church is still here and is worthy of trust because it is protected by God against anti-Popes and heresies and other evils – then I fully agree and there’s not much reason to discuss more.

Mal: Then if your pet theory is correct you should have little trouble proving it , correct? Have at it and we’ll see how well you do.

When I challenged your subjective approach to accessing the Truth about matters, you turned around and attacked me. You claim that I have a “pet theory” but I merely proposed that without Christ’s promise of protection of the Church, and if I supposedly have to decide for myself what the Truth is (as you claimed), then I’d have no basis to accept what was taught from the beginning.

That the Church is indefectable is *de fide *teaching. It cannot teach heresy.

I don’t know if you’re agreeing with that or not. You seem to be saying that the Church has lost the Faith – right?

 

[newearth]

I am not saying the prayers we say today are wrong. I am saying the words to the lords prayer was given to us to say directly from jesus christ here on earth. And he told us the words to say. And this goes for the church to. Asked for by jesus christ to peter… The first pope… don’t mean to offend just stay with me on this to the end of this page ok… I don’t believe in any of gods words that was put in non catholic bibles… I only believe his words from the true church and bible like the Douay-Rheims bible…
don’t you think non catholics feel and believe the same just as strongly about there church and beliefs…
So where is the intermingling of the faiths and churches… Are you catholic… What if you say to a prodison that you half believe his bible but not fully… What if you say you fully believe in the words in the non catholic bible… Well then you may as well read from the king jAmes bible its been deemed by the Vatican as accepted reading… Stop…look. What do we have… Division… Would you agree that jesus did not assend to heaven on the third day just to not cause division between faiths… Would a muslem say jesus is god the son in the trinity… When it directly goes agents there beliefs… So tell me what is Vatican 2 trying to do…
Whets the secret…

 

[otjm]

His bitterness is almost palpable, isn’t it?

Bitterness? I simply stated facts. If I was bitter, I would skew them.

Am I concerned? Anyone with a right mind would be concerned over the chaos we have endured. On the other hand, I don’t recall any promises in the Gospels that all would be light and sweetness, and any reasonable history of the Church would show that it has endured diffculties throught its existence. In fact, that seemed to be from the start; St Paul was not hesitant about writing to his churches concerning how they were going astray. That is not an excuse, but it does lend a bit of perspective.

It is easy to presume that life was much simpler in the “old days”, but I would not call the Korean War, the Viet Nam war, the nuclear missles in Cuba, and the race relations of the 50’s and 60’s particularly “simple”.

 

[reggieM]

Suddenly we had the term “homoousios” added to the Deposit of Faith? Is there a precedent for that?

… clarification here. That was a bit satirical. The term was not an “addition to the Deposit …” but added to the Nicene Creed and without precedent.