What do you make of this Benedict XVI and Vatican II

[fhansen]

I would love an answer too. As an young adult and convert to the faith, I only notice older Catholics relentlessly bringing up the wonderful renewal that emerged from the Second Vatican Council and ignoring the great amount of apostasy found among the members of the Church and its destruction since the council.

Apostasy- from all authority -was the order of the day; it would’ve happened in the Church in any case. The world changed in some fundamental way. It’s very different now than in my own youth. People question things more-much more. They no longer “do as they’re told” for the most part, clinging to religious traditions as well as others handed down for centuries. Personal human freedom is almost worshiped like a god. Cynicism abounds. Mores were swapped-what was formerly right became wrong, etc. These things happened in relatively sudden fashion, historically speaking.

IMO, Vat II anticipated these changes. When I read her documents, I don’t find widespread changes in doctrine-I find a richness of wisdom that, when we catch up to it, has the potential to face this world, rather than conform to it, with a new courage and outlook, a fresher way to apply the love of the gospel to a fragmenting, sick world. This has nothing to do with liberalism. The liberals were obviously waiting in the wings ready to get their way. But both liberals and conservatives blame each other for what they perceive to be compromises made by the council. In the end, I believe the Holy Spirit got His way. But sin and ignorance are alive and well and have always reared their heads in the Church-causing abuses and scandals in one way or another- since day one. As a side note I’m amazed at how far back-prior to the last council-some of the sex abuse cases go. One way or the other, we can look backwards with rose colored glasses but I don’t think the old days were ever so good as we might want to imagine.

In any case the Church after Trent didn’t “look” exactly like it did at in the Book of Acts or at Nicea and it won’t look like it does today 3 centuries from now. But it will always preach the same gospel-and will continue to get better at understanding it-and herself obeying it, along with spreading it.

 

[PA650]

Apostasy- from all authority -was the order of the day; it would’ve happened in the Church in any case. The world changed in some fundamental way. It’s very different now than in my own youth. People question things more-much more. They no longer “do as they’re told” for the most part, clinging to religious traditions as well as others handed down for centuries. Personal human freedom is almost worshiped like a god. Cynicism abounds. Mores were swapped-what was formerly right became wrong, etc. These things happened in relatively sudden fashion, historically speaking.

IMO, Vat II anticipated these changes. When I read her documents, I don’t find widespread changes in doctrine-I find a richness of wisdom that, when we catch up to it, has the potential to face this world, rather than conform to it, with a new courage and outlook, a fresher way to apply the love of the gospel to a fragmenting, sick world. This has nothing to do with liberalism. The liberals were obviously waiting in the wings ready to get their way. But both liberals and conservatives blame each other for what they perceive to be compromises made by the council. In the end, I believe the Holy Spirit got His way. But sin and ignorance are alive and well and have always reared their heads in the Church-causing abuses and scandals in one way or another- since day one. As a side note I’m amazed at how far back-prior to the last council-some of the sex abuse cases go. One way or the other, we can look backwards with rose colored glasses but I don’t think the old days were ever so good as we might want to imagine.

In any case the Church after Trent didn’t “look” exactly like it did at in the Book of Acts or at Nicea and it won’t look like it does today 3 centuries from now. But it will always preach the same gospel-and will continue to get better at understanding it-and herself obeying it, along with spreading it.

Thank you for your response. Certainly modernism existed among the clergy before the wholesale rejection of tradition by the Church following the council. In addition, I don’t aim to look at the past with rose colored glasses, but rather use tradition to bring about a restoration of the Church than continue the status-quo of whatever the modern Church represents. Beyond the fractured diocesan structure represented by dioceses characterized by either liberalism or orthodoxy, I see renewal emerging from such priestly societies as The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, and the Society of Saint Pius X particularly when canonical regularity is restored by the Holy Father to remove any misgivings among many Catholics. Overall, I’m very much faced with joining the situation of ‘tradition in the ghetto’ or indifferent apostasy.

 

[thirddec]

Don’t be over concerned if your left or right in Church politics but rather try to be confident you are following as close as possable to Christ in how you live your life. Sacrement; Prayer ( especially the Rosary ) ; and concern and love for your fellow human beings. Do all that and trust in God

 

[PA650]

Don’t be over concerned if your left or right in Church politics but rather try to be confident you are following as close as possable to Christ in how you live your life. Sacrement; Prayer ( especially the Rosary ) ; and concern and love for your fellow human beings. Do all that and trust in God

Good advice. Yet, the Church’s current crisis primarily deals with the issue of traditionalism versus modernism. Traditionalism being an integral element of the Catholic faith while modernism is nothing but a foreign element infecting the Church.

Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves.
Pope Benedict XVI
Homily at inauguration as Pope, April 24, 2005

Certainly we can never discount the great spiritual warfare the Church engages in on a constant basis and I hope I don’t fall and engage in apathy regarding our Church.

 

[Portrait]

Well none of us thinks they’re misguided, obviously. And there’ll always be contesting factions within the Church-Arianism virtually reigned with Christianity for quite awhile. And while perhaps Pope Benedict could speak in plainer language, I also believe he can be pretty adept at clarifying or shedding new light on old concepts without distorting them. Without room for freedom in theological thought, I doubt Augustine or Aquinas would’ve gotten very far in being accepted-and they actually weren’t immediately. In any case, I consider the pope to be quite orthodox in his theology. But while I suppose we could go round quite a bit on all this, I tend to be optimistic about the benefits we’ll receive from Vat II in the long run.

Dear fhansen,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for the above and apologies for the delay in replying.

True, there will always be dissentient groups within the Church, but when it is ambiguous statements uttered by Popes which are the occasion of the dissent, then surely that is problematic because you are then faced with the difficulty of having to decide who is interpreting those statements correctly. To whom does one look for a correct and authentic interpretation of such equivocal statements, the trendy liberal types or the traditional conservatives?

Now as regards that key statement of Pope John XXIII, it may seem as if he was merely saying that each generation must re-express the unchanging core of Christian truth in its own language and jargon. However, this idea is so obvious that the Pope need not have said it, and it is certainly not capable of precipitating the furore which followed in the wake of the statement. Thus, must we look elsewhere for its real significance? His single sentence was surely a pithy, if deceptively simple, summary of the new progressive Catholicism. There is a distinction to be drawn between truth in itself (“the deposit of faith is one thing”) and truth as it is comprehended by the Church and taught to the world (“the way in which it is presented is another”).

Many Catholics refuse to face up to the full import of PJXXIII’s statement, which is responsible for liberating contemporary Catholicism from its traditional attitudes towards culture and religion. It is effectively saying that no doctrinal formulation from the past can bind Catholic attitudes in the present; each formulation is to some extent deficient. Each generation must try afresh to penetrate the deposit of faith more deeply and correspondingly reformulate its own faith. Alas, no generation will again be able to claim eternal and unchanging status for its formulation! This is the world-view of liberalism and it has infected the entire Church, post Vatican II. Whilst it is true that both the conservative and liberal elements within our Church are working with the same deposit of faith, both view things differently as they work with it, so much so, in fact, that they end being diametrically opposed to one another on a whole range of issues. This is highly embarrassing for a Church that claims to be the one true Church established by Christ, because it refuses to reprove the liberalism rampant within its midst and address the matter by way of offering some clarification as to its authentic position. Surely it owes this to the faithful who are tired of the whole conflict between liberal and conservative?

It is a sad state of affairs when it is the Church herself who is responsible for all of this confusion by its unfortunate use of equivocal language at Vatican II.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[fhansen]

Dear fhansen,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for the above and apologies for the delay in replying.

True, there will always be dissentient groups within the Church, but when it is ambiguous statements uttered by Popes which are the occasion of the dissent, then surely that is problematic because you are then faced with the difficulty of having to decide who is interpreting those statements correctly. To whom does one look for a correct and authentic interpretation of such equivocal statements, the trendy liberal types or the traditional conservatives?

Now as regards that key statement of Pope John XXIII, it may seem as if he was merely saying that each generation must re-express the unchanging core of Christian truth in its own language and jargon. However, this idea is so obvious that the Pope need not have said it, and it is certainly not capable of precipitating the furore which followed in the wake of the statement. Thus, must we look elsewhere for its real significance? His single sentence was surely a pithy, if deceptively simple, summary of the new progressive Catholicism. There is a distinction to be drawn between truth in itself (“the deposit of faith is one thing”) and truth as it is comprehended by the Church and taught to the world (“the way in which it is presented is another”).

Many Catholics refuse to face up to the full import of PJXXIII’s statement, which is responsible for liberating contemporary Catholicism from its traditional attitudes towards culture and religion. It is effectively saying that no doctrinal formulation from the past can bind Catholic attitudes in the present; each formulation is to some extent deficient. Each generation must try afresh to penetrate the deposit of faith more deeply and correspondingly reformulate its own faith. Alas, no generation will again be able to claim eternal and unchanging status for its formulation! This is the world-view of liberalism and it has infected the entire Church, post Vatican II. Whilst it is true that both the conservative and liberal elements within our Church are working with the same deposit of faith, both view things differently as they work with it, so much so, in fact, that they end being diametrically opposed to one another on a whole range of issues. This is highly embarrassing for a Church that claims to be the one true Church established by Christ, because it refuses to reprove the liberalism rampant within its midst and address the matter by way of offering some clarification as to its authentic position. Surely it owes this to the faithful who are tired of the whole conflict between liberal and conservative?

It is a sad state of affairs when it is the Church herself who is responsible for all of this confusion by its unfortunate use of equivocal language at Vatican II.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

I can’t help but think you’re overreacting to the statement, and this because of the fact, for example, that much to the chagrin of liberals the Church hasn’t-and never will, I’m convinced-change it’s position on such issues as homosexuality, abortion, contraception and women priesthood. Most of what has occurred in the last 40 or so years may have been the result of weakness in leadership in part, but not to changed doctrine.

In any case, we’re all aware that people twist statements of others for their own purposes. Due to this, many post-concilliar documents were already produced soon after the council closed, attempting to clarify teachings where excesses resulted from people choosing to read things in the way they preferred. But reading things the way people prefer continues on-it’s what caused the Reformation-at least where dogmatic differences occur.

I applaud the Traditionalist movement for providing a safe haven and force for stabilization in a sometimes confused Catholic world but I think we’re throwing the baby out with the bath water if we reject all of Vat II out of hand. Vat II didn’t beget modernists/liberals within the Church-they were already alive and well. Their own naivete was/is a cultural phenomenon that Church dogma may be immune to while Church members, including leadership, aren’t necessarily.

We’re seeing signs that the pendulum is swinging back, slowly; the Church will probably end up smaller as she becomes stronger in practicing what she preaches-and preaching what we all should practice. I’ll never be particularly optimistic about human nature but I’ll always be optimistic about Gods’ guiding hand being present over His Church.

 

[Portrait]

Apostasy- from all authority -was the order of the day; it would’ve happened in the Church in any case. The world changed in some fundamental way. It’s very different now than in my own youth. People question things more-much more. They no longer “do as they’re told” for the most part, clinging to religious traditions as well as others handed down for centuries. Personal human freedom is almost worshiped like a god. Cynicism abounds. Mores were swapped-what was formerly right became wrong, etc. These things happened in relatively sudden fashion, historically speaking.

IMO, Vat II anticipated these changes. When I read her documents, I don’t find widespread changes in doctrine-I find a richness of wisdom that, when we catch up to it, has the potential to face this world, rather than conform to it, with a new courage and outlook, a fresher way to apply the love of the gospel to a fragmenting, sick world. This has nothing to do with liberalism. The liberals were obviously waiting in the wings ready to get their way. But both liberals and conservatives blame each other for what they perceive to be compromises made by the council. In the end, I believe the Holy Spirit got His way. But sin and ignorance are alive and well and have always reared their heads in the Church-causing abuses and scandals in one way or another- since day one. As a side note I’m amazed at how far back-prior to the last council-some of the sex abuse cases go. One way or the other, we can look backwards with rose colored glasses but I don’t think the old days were ever so good as we might want to imagine.

In any case the Church after Trent didn’t “look” exactly like it did at in the Book of Acts or at Nicea and it won’t look like it does today 3 centuries from now. But it will always preach the same gospel-and will continue to get better at understanding it-and herself obeying it, along with spreading it.

Dear fhansen,

Hello again. I do hope that PA650 will not object to me answering your response to his post.

The world changed in a fundamental way during the 1960’s because of the moral and cultural revolution, the “whole new generation, with a new explanation…”, to quote one of the foolish pop anthems of those defiant and decadent times. Rather than raising a standard against the drift of secularism and refusing to be influenced by the spirit of that flippant age, the Church bent over backwards to accommodate itself to the new philosphy that was beginning to emerge. This was done out of the mistaken idea that if it did not, then the Catholic Church would cease to be relevant and accessible to modern man, especially youth whom it would alienate if it did not move with the times. Thus if it did not want to elicit hostility from the new generation of young people, the Church had to have a facelift and trim its sails to the prevailing thought and culture, at least to some extent. Many men believed, and stubbornly continue to believe, that this is the necessary way forward if the Church is not to become tangential. That was, and is, a dreadful error and has seriously impaired the image of the Church in the eyes of the watching world because it has failed to provide a vibrant Christian counter-culture that dares to stand alone and dares to be different.

It is true that this may have occured even apart from VII, but the whole tone of the Council was undeniably favourable to the new outlook with its strong dislike of all things conservative and anything that had even a whiff of traditionalism about it or was pro-establishment. Revolt against an alleged oppressive authority and challenging accepted norms and holding them up to derision was the order of the day. Alas, it was even deemed the trendy thing to do in rock music and some films. The ripple effects of all this nonsense is still being felt today in terms of widespread immorality and vice, total disregard for human life, lack of respect for authority, unprecedented adolecent rebellion, numerous social problems and a lowered public opinion.

Many were full of excitement as to what the Council could achieve for the Church and many sincerely believed that only good could come from it - they have beem proved horribly wrong. The religious were excited, advancing programmes of ‘renewal’ at every opportunity, but in the vast majority of cases they were trying to discover an easy way out of not having to adhere strictly to the rules of their founders. They were actually winding down and looking for a more comfortable way that did not involve onerous disciplines and endless self-denial. Their mantra was, “there must be change, the austere times are over and we must find an easier way now”. “Freedom”, a word imported from the hippy and drug culture, became the watchword. Renewal came, at length, to denote freedom and are relaxed, world-affirming approach to religion.

Vatican II was hailed as the coming of Spring following a very long Winter (the pre-Vatican II days), but in point of fact the life-blood of the Church was starting to drain away. However, with the coming of ‘freedom’ everything changed from austerity and zeal in religion to ease and comfort. The days when there high standards to be observed, rules to be kept and Church teaching not questioned, were gone for ever. Nowaday’s Catholics can adopt a hand in hand with the world type of religion that makes little or no demand upon them in terms of self-denial and living up to the arduous requirements of our most holy religion. For example, take the issue of modesty in vesture, now you have women attending even Holy Mass attired in mini-skirts and shorts, garments unbefitting of those who profess religion at any time.

Yes, the world has certianly changed in a fundamental way, but, regrettably, so has our beloved Church also and not, I fear, for the better.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

I can’t help but think you’re overreacting to the statement, and this because of the fact, for example, that much to the chagrin of liberals the Church hasn’t-and never will, I’m convinced-change it’s position on such issues as homosexuality, abortion, contraception and women priesthood. Most of what has occurred in the last 40 or so years may have been the result of weakness in leadership in part, but not to changed doctrine.

In any case, we’re all aware that people twist statements of others for their own purposes. Due to this, many post-concilliar documents were already produced soon after the council closed, attempting to clarify teachings where excesses resulted from people choosing to read things in the way they preferred. But reading things the way people prefer continues on-it’s what caused the Reformation-at least where dogmatic differences occur.

I applaud the Traditionalist movement for providing a safe haven and force for stabilization in a sometimes confused Catholic world but I think we’re throwing the baby out with the bath water if we reject all of Vat II out of hand. Vat II didn’t beget modernists/liberals within the Church-they were already alive and well. Their own naivete was/is a cultural phenomenon that Church dogma may be immune to while Church members, including leadership, aren’t necessarily.

We’re seeing signs that the pendulum is swinging back, slowly; the Church will probably end up smaller as she becomes stronger in practicing what she preaches-and preaching what we all should practice. I’ll never be particularly optimistic about human nature but I’ll always be optimistic about Gods’ guiding hand being present over His Church.

Dear fhansen,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for the above response.

No, the Church will never change its position on any of the issues to which you refer, because it is the one true Church founded by Christ and, as such, the activity of forces hostile to the cause of good will never prevail against it. On that we are agreed dear friend. However, that does not mean that the Church will not be subject to more subtle attacks, such as, for example, neo-Catholic orthodoxy and its whole compromising and world-affirming approach to the practice of religion. The infulence of this new brand of ‘Catholic evangelicalism’ should never be underestimated as it is gaining in popularity, especially among young American’s and converts from Fundamentalism. In many respects it is, to its credit, orthodox in faith and morals, which is why it is so deceptive, nevertheless it generally embraces a ‘Catholicism Lite’ and does not frown upon such things as immodest dress, rock/pop music, unwholesome books and computer games and films containing culturally unhealthy material.

Say old chap, you mentioned women ordination. Were you aware that in the pre-Vatican II period there was a long theological trend which correctly assumed that that women should not be ordained to the priesthood because of their “natural condition of inferiority and subjection”. Being weaker, they “inept for the heavy labours of the social and ecclesiastical life”. Moreover, their moral feebleness “is manifest in the lightness of judgment, in credulity, and in the fragility of spirit by which she is less able to reign in the passions, particularily concupiscence”. Now this would be regarded by many within our Church today as blatant ‘sexism’ of the worst sort and as such it should have no place in contemporary Catholicism. Notwithstanding, I and many traditionalists, would have no problem with such langauge which is essentially biblical and orthodox - no worse than St. Peter refering to women as the “weaker vessel” and St. Paul speaking of the woman being first deceived by the Devil and falling into temptation and sin. St. Thomas Aquinas said several times that women are by nature mentally and morally weaker than men, and that women are naturally subject to men, and he was quite correct in his observation. You see, the Church has changed its thinking since Vatican II!

Modernism was in existence prior to VII, but it was, I believe, given a fresh impetus at the Council, where it was assimilated into some of the teaching of the Documents, for example on biblical inerrancy and ecumenism. More about that next time.

Goodbye for now.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[fhansen]

Thank you for the response. I had to think about my answers a bit this time.

Say old chap, you mentioned women ordination. Were you aware that in the pre-Vatican II period there was a long theological trend which correctly assumed that that women should not be ordained to the priesthood because of their “natural condition of inferiority and subjection”.

Yes, well, for whatever reasons that God wants a male-only priesthood, and I’m not asserting that the reasons given in your post necessarily conflict with scripture, *trends *can nonetheless be cultural phenomenon as well- influences from within or outside the Church. In any case, what are decidedly not trends are dogmas themselves. And I have a difficult time believing that the same Holy Spirit who maintains dogmatic perfection in matters of faith and morals wouldn’t also preside in some reasonable fashion over His Church’s ecumenical councils, whether or not its’ main purpose was to address dogma/doctrine specifically.

I left the Church fairly early on after the council closed and many of the new practices were put in place, in large part due to those same practices and the wishy-washy atmosphere and compromised teachings that resulted. I left for over 20 years. I came back when I finally realized that God not only sent His Son, but that His Son only established one Church and there was only one that met the criteria for that role.

Now while I may’ve just become gullible in my old age, after spending time reading through much of the Vat II docs, I now believe there’ll be much good fruit to be harvested from this council- as it’s sorted out. Just my opinion.

 

[Portrait]

Thank you for the response. I had to think about my answers a bit this time.

Yes, well, for whatever reasons that God wants a male-only priesthood, and I’m not asserting that the reasons given in your post necessarily conflict with scripture, *trends *can nonetheless be cultural phenomenon as well- influences from within or outside the Church. In any case, what are decidedly not trends are dogmas themselves. And I have a difficult time believing that the same Holy Spirit who maintains dogmatic perfection in matters of faith and morals wouldn’t also preside in some reasonable fashion over His Church’s ecumenical councils, whether or not its’ main purpose was to address dogma/doctrine specifically.

I left the Church fairly early on after the council closed and many of the new practices were put in place, in large part due to those same practices and the wishy-washy atmosphere and compromised teachings that resulted. I left for over 20 years. I came back when I finally realized that God not only sent His Son, but that His Son only established one Church and there was only one that met the criteria for that role.

Now while I may’ve just become gullible in my old age, after spending time reading through much of the Vat II docs, I now believe there’ll be much good fruit to be harvested from this council- as it’s sorted out. Just my opinion.

Dear fhansen,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Thankyou, dear friend, for the above and for sharing about your return to Holy Mother Church. BTW, I am a former Anglican High-Churchman and it took me some 20 years of intensive study and painstaking research, investigating the Catholic claims, before I was ready to make the Tiber crossing in December 2009. Now that I have, I am so very glad to be part of the one true Church established by Christ, notwithstanding the internal conflicts and the ‘Catholicism Lite’ that seems to prevail in the Western half of the Church.

Let us hope and pray that there will be a return to the thoroughgoing Catholicism of former times, when men strived to live up to the arduous requirements of their religion. The urgent need of the hour is for the Church to offer the world a vibrant Christian counter-culture that dares to be different and which fosters the pursuit of sanctity and separartion from the godless world - think the Protestant Puritan saints could teach a thing or two in that realm. At any rate, when we look to the Cross on Good Friday, we certainly see the suffering that our dear Lord endured for us men and our salvation, but we also see the call to holiness and self-denial during our earthly sojourn - “Follow peace with all men, and holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12: 14).

Hope we can talk again sometime as I have enjoyed speaking with you. Sorry if at times I waxed a little trenchant, dear friend.

Easter blessings.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Pax

 

[Robert_Burns]

Ten years after the Council, Cardinal Ratzinger had the following sad commentary on its implementation (“Ratzinger Report,” p. 29-30), “It is incontestable that the last ten years have been decidedly unfavorable for the Catholic Church. Developments since the Council seem to be in striking contrast to the expectations of all, beginning with those of John XXIII and Paul VI… What the Popes and the Council Fathers were expecting was a new Catholic unity, and instead one has encountered a dissension which — to use the words of Paul VI — seems to have passed over from self-criticism to self-destruction. There had been the expectation of a new enthusiasm, and instead too often it has ended in boredom and discouragement. There had been the expectation of a step forward, and instead one found oneself facing a progressive process of decadence that to a large measure has been unfolding under the sign of a summons to a presumed ‘spirit of the Council’ and by so doing has actually and increasingly discredited it.”

My problem with it lies chiefly in Lumen Gentium. I’l give you an example. We know that the Pope holds Universal Authority as the Bishop of Rome. This is Dogma. But in Lumen Gentium - the Council is teaching that other Religions “Subsist” in the Catholic Church , which may appear to be minor on the surface , however , how does this then square with the Universal mark of the Church and ultimately the Lawful authority of the Pope.

Do these Other religions actually give their obedience to the Roman Pontiff? If not how can they be members of the Church? Or , if you insist they are members of the Church even some albeit ignorant - how then can their power structures co exist and not damage the universal power of the Papacy in that these other religions do not give their obedience? And their membership doesnt practise what the Pope promulgates. how then can this be the Universal Church established by Jesus Christ? I think the line has been blurred and it is a have your cake and eat it too argument. I see no solution to that problem. We cannot forego Univerality nor can we advocate disobedience to the Pope.

I see no answer to this situation, hense my problems with Vatican II.

 

[fhansen]

My problem with it lies chiefly in Lumen Gentium. I’l give you an example. We know that the Pope holds Universal Authority as the Bishop of Rome. This is Dogma. But in Lumen Gentium - the Council is teaching that other Religions “Subsist” in the Catholic Church , which may appear to be minor on the surface , however , how does this then square with the Universal mark of the Church and ultimately the Lawful authority of the Pope.

Do these Other religions actually give their obedience to the Roman Pontiff? If not how can they be members of the Church? Or , if you insist they are members of the Church even some albeit ignorant - how then can their power structures co exist and not damage the universal power of the Papacy in that these other religions do not give their obedience? And their membership doesnt practise what the Pope promulgates. how then can this be the Universal Church established by Jesus Christ? I think the line has been blurred and it is a have your cake and eat it too argument. I see no solution to that problem. We cannot forego Univerality nor can we advocate disobedience to the Pope.

I see no answer to this situation, hense my problems with Vatican II.

From my understanding, FWIW, the Church recognizes the good to be found wherever truth is upheld. As St Augustine said, “All truth, is Gods’ truth.” To the extent other churches/religions do this-to whatever extent they agree with the CC- we should applaud that fact rather than merely isolate and emphasize only our differences; because of her confidence in her own knowledge of the truth God has revealed, we have no use for or need to fear outsiders. OTOH, the Church must stand for the truth as she’s received it and never compromise it where differences lie.

As Jesus loved all mankind, the Church loves all as well and grieves over those who’ve separated from her-and therefore separated from perfect union with Gods’ truth. She calls these people “separated brethern”, imperfectly united with her, sort of like Prodigals who haven’t yet understood what they were protesting, what they lost, what they missed. But, being the Holy Mother she is-the good mother she is- she knows very well.

 

[fhansen]

Dear fhansen,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Thankyou, dear friend, for the above and for sharing about your return to Holy Mother Church. BTW, I am a former Anglican High-Churchman and it took me some 20 years of intensive study and painstaking research, investigating the Catholic claims, before I was ready to make the Tiber crossing in December 2009. Now that I have, I am so very glad to be part of the one true Church established by Christ, notwithstanding the internal conflicts and the ‘Catholicism Lite’ that seems to prevail in the Western half of the Church.

Let us hope and pray that there will be a return to the thoroughgoing Catholicism of former times, when men strived to live up to the arduous requirements of their religion. The urgent need of the hour is for the Church to offer the world a vibrant Christian counter-culture that dares to be different and which fosters the pursuit of sanctity and separartion from the godless world - think the Protestant Puritan saints could teach a thing or two in that realm. At any rate, when we look to the Cross on Good Friday, we certainly see the suffering that our dear Lord endured for us men and our salvation, but we also see the call to holiness and self-denial during our earthly sojourn - “Follow peace with all men, and holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12: 14).

Hope we can talk again sometime as I have enjoyed speaking with you. Sorry if at times I waxed a little trenchant, dear friend.

Easter blessings.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Pax

Thank you as well-I’ve enjoyed the exchange.

 

[Robert_Burns]

From my understanding, FWIW, the Church recognizes the good to be found wherever truth is upheld. As St Augustine said, “All truth, is Gods’ truth.” To the extent other churches/religions do this-to whatever extent they agree with the CC- we should applaud that fact rather than merely isolate and emphasize only our differences; because of her confidence in her own knowledge of the truth God has revealed, we have no use for or need to fear outsiders. OTOH, the Church must stand for the truth as she’s received it and never compromise it where differences lie.

As Jesus loved all mankind, the Church loves all as well and grieves over those who’ve separated from her-and therefore separated from perfect union with Gods’ truth. She calls these people “separated brethern”, imperfectly united with her, sort of like Prodigals who haven’t yet understood what they were protesting, what they lost, what they missed. But, being the Holy Mother she is-the good mother she is- she knows very well.

With all due respect .

You failed to address the points I raised at all and instead chose to tap dace around the points raised. I am aware what Lumen Gentium teaches and says. But in regards to the term “Subsist” - that means what it means. Trying to tap dance around terms that have defined theological meanings will not save your argument. I never talked about “looking with esteem on the muslims” etc. I am addressing the term “subsist” and what it means. When the term Subsist is used it implies union. You can give me the rah rah stuff all day long and it doesnt change what Lumen Gentium says and means and that is an issue that will not go away until it is better defined and unambiguous which currently ity isnt.

Pax

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

If by “spirit” you mean “zeitgeist” then YES!!

The true spirit of the Second Ecumenical Synod of the Vatican was the HOLY SPIRIT. Amen.

 

[basinite]

How can anyone say the so called ‘spirit’ of Vatican II didn’t hurt the Church. What bubble are you all in?

Really sad isn’t it. And to think that this is supposed to be the “Traditional Catholicism” forum. What a joke. I think all the Traditional Catholics are over at Fisheaters or they decided to take the day off.

Every Catholic indicator tells us that the Church has declined since Vatican II. This is a fact. People may lie, but numbers don’t. For all of you that believe the “Spirit” of Vatican II was great for the Church. I ask that you seriously reconsider and pray for God’s discernment in this matter.

Pax Christi.

 

[Portrait]

Really sad isn’t it. And to think that this is supposed to be the “Traditional Catholicism” forum. What a joke. I think all the Traditional Catholics are over at Fisheaters or they decided to take the day off.

Every Catholic indicator tells us that the Church has declined since Vatican II. This is a fact. People may lie, but numbers don’t. For all of you that believe the “Spirit” of Vatican II was great for the Church. I ask that you seriously reconsider and pray for God’s discernment in this matter.

Pax Christi.

Dear basinite,

Cordial greetings and jolly well said.

Indeed, the Church has declined considerably since VII and if proof were needed of this then you only need to look at the quality of books on Catholic apologetics. Can you imagine weighty volumes like Radio Replies being written today with their plain and uncompromising tone, or Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine by Archbishop Michael Sheehan, a textbook that really taught the Faith to millions of Catholics worldwide (thanks be to God, its back in print)? Remarkably, this latter book was once a college text for 15 and 16 year old pupils, nowaday’s it is unlikely that your average adult Catholic in the pew would be able to cope with its contents and follow the arguments.

BTW, this traditionalist has been very present on this thread and his posts demonstrate that he has little sympathy with VII and the developments which have occured in its aftermath.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[fhansen]

With all due respect .

You failed to address the points I raised at all and instead chose to tap dace around the points raised. I am aware what Lumen Gentium teaches and says. But in regards to the term “Subsist” - that means what it means. Trying to tap dance around terms that have defined theological meanings will not save your argument. I never talked about “looking with esteem on the muslims” etc. I am addressing the term “subsist” and what it means. When the term Subsist is used it implies union. You can give me the rah rah stuff all day long and it doesnt change what Lumen Gentium says and means and that is an issue that will not go away until it is better defined and unambiguous which currently ity isnt.

Pax

OK, well, having been gone since not long after the end of the council, I haven’t been involved in this particular controversy so, while apparently it wasn’t worth much, my tap dancing and rah rah stuff subsisted-or maybe I should say, consisted-in attempting to explain my understanding of the Churchs’ understanding of herself and her role, based not solely on LG, which I haven’t read through in years, but also on documents such as Nostra Aetate, the Decree on Ecumenism, and the Catechism, etc, all of which I know can be controversial as well. But if the Churchs’ explanations haven’t sufficed or satisfied, I’m certain mine will have no bearing at all.

 

[Portrait]

With all due respect .

You failed to address the points I raised at all and instead chose to tap dace around the points raised. I am aware what Lumen Gentium teaches and says. But in regards to the term “Subsist” - that means what it means. Trying to tap dance around terms that have defined theological meanings will not save your argument. I never talked about “looking with esteem on the muslims” etc. I am addressing the term “subsist” and what it means. When the term Subsist is used it implies union. You can give me the rah rah stuff all day long and it doesnt change what Lumen Gentium says and means and that is an issue that will not go away until it is better defined and unambiguous which currently ity isnt.

Pax

Dear Robert Burns,

Cordial greetings and Easter blessings.

Perhaps I can throw some light upon the issue, dear friend. As I understand it the new theology of Vatican II sees Christ as related to all of mankind and often illustrates this by a series of concentric circles. At the centre of all the circles is Christ. Moving outward, each circle which is further from the centre exhibits less of Christ’s reality and is correspondingly less christian in its consciousness. The innermost circle, which is gathered around Christ, is comprised of the Catholic Church. Catholics are said to be ‘incorporated’ in Christ in a full embodiment and sustain the closest realtionship to Him. However, His reality is said only to ‘subsist’ in the Church, and this, in the subtle jargon of conciliar theology, implies that He is also to found outside the Catholic Church, or, if you please, His reality also transcends the first circle, that is to say the Catholic Church.

In the pre-Vatican II days, non-Catholic Christians were said to be totally alienated from Christ now they are said to be ‘linked’ to Him, implying some sort of relation, but not one as real or as genuine as that enjoyed by the Catholic. Thus non-Catholic Christians are not alienated from truth, but merely separated from its fulness.

Controversially, non-Christian religions (the third circle) are said to be also related to Christ. Thus, Jews, Hindus and Moslems are not entirely without Christ’s light and the idea that there are varying degrees to membership in the people of God, caused the Council to be wholly positive in its evaluation of non-Christian religion. Whilst the Council was not saying that all religions are equally true, it was surely attempting to combine the pre-VII idea that Christ is to be found only in the Catholic Church with the progressive notion that something of the Divine is to be seen in all men. In other words, there was the merging of a vision which is universal in scope with a concern that is Catholic in particularism. This comes perilously close to universalism and some theologians, building on the Councils teaching, have argued that a time will come when the People of God will become coextensive with all mankind. Is every man, therefore, implicitly a member of God’s kingdom even now?

The final circle is made up of atheists. Even they are not devoid of the Christward relation. From this emerged Karl Rahner’s notion of the ‘anonymous Christian’. Now whilst the Council rejected atheism in any of its forms, it nevertheless refused to pronounce any more anathemas upon it. Why? Many traditionalists rightly see this as a watering down of the pre-VII postion by making the Faith more inclusive and less exclusive, as if it was morally repugnant for the one true Church established by Christ to be exclusive! Thus two basic shifts in understanding have taken place. The Council did not think that atheism is, of necessity, morally wrong, whereas traditionally it has always been deemed both stupid and wicked - “the fool has said in his heart that there is no God” and, secondly, the Council did not exclude the possibility of an atheist being saved, without conversion and baptismal regeneration. To reply that it is possible for such men to “attain to everlasting salvation” seems to make a mockery of the Gospel and the need for evangelisation. Surely this is virtually universalism by the back door. Are we to believe, then, that any man who has some vague aspiration after goodness can be saved; can he be outwardly and explicitly athesitic and yet be inwardly and implicitly Christian? If so then a man can be one of Rahner’s ‘annonymous Christians’ even though he may be a Christopher Hitchens who mocks the whole idea of God. Is God really saving such a man beneath his facade of atheism? Sorry my beloved but this is universalism and such unorthodox ideas would never have found currency or have been endorsed by the pre-VII Church.

Hope that is of some help Robert, will be pleased to discuss further the other side of Easter.

God bless

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Robert_Burns]

Dear Robert Burns,

Cordial greetings and Easter blessings.

Perhaps I can throw some light upon the issue, dear friend. etc…
…
Hope that is of some help Robert, will be pleased to discuss further the other side of Easter.

God bless

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

(Deleted only for brevity)
Pax

Thank you for your very kind explanation. I am very aware of the modern definition by theologians such as Rahner and Balthasar , I simply dont buy into any of it. HE does indeed transcend any and all human understanding of his reach and the extent of HIS Grace and ability to save - (See the Repentant thief. ) But my issue with the modern theology is man’s willingness to attempt to define what is or is not Christ like and to define what is or is not pleasing and acceptable - so much so that there is no longer a right or wrong - a teaching Church or a Lawful Authority. It seems that even the lines themselves of morality can be blurred at a whim. When we read of the Saints from times past we read an entirely different message however.

Therefore , I cannot see how believing that non Catholic religions or atheists are on their journey towards salvation on one hand and a demonstrated thorough rejection of the lawful authority of the Pope whome they must embrace in order to be saved is a completely contradictory position. The question never hads been the Capacity of GOD to save - even on the death bed of the worst sinner - a soul who is willing to repent. The question instead is - what about those who refuse to their entire life and live and work against the Church and the Pope their entire life and refuse to acknowledge the Primacy or any of the teachings - how then can they subsist in the Church in anyway knowing that GOD has chosen the Pope. Even Natural Law which allows for invincible ignorance , still doent allow for reject of a TRUTH with the presence of conscience objectivity.

As Catholics we have always known that any and all men have the ability to save their souls through repentance. We also know that not all of them will. Scripture is clear on that point. Knowing this to be true - how then can we then claim that our religion is exclusionary when the exclusion is and individual conscience choice by dissenters who the modern theologians say that dispite that dissention , “subsist” in the Church.

I completely disagree with this premise and find it to be a complete contradiction not only with the past theology of the church and Scripture and theologians in all ages - but with the Lawful Authority of the Magisterium itself. We cannot have a lawful authority so ordained by GOD which is merely a figurehead and man instead holding that authority based entirely on what he is willing to believe or reject thus rendering the Sacraments - the Popes - and ultimately even the Catholic religion meaningless.

Thats my issue with it.

Pax