What do you make of this Benedict XVI and Vatican II

[thirddec]

The Church may not preach those aspects of its beliefs but it has not dropped them just chosen a different emphasise. but I agree we should pray for conversions especially for our lost sheep that they return.

 

[Gregory_I]

THere is noemphasis to be chosen but truth.

WHOLE truth,

and nothing BUT the whole and entire truth.

THose who think the church needs to EMPHASIZE different parts of its teaching are just pandering to mankind’s sensibilities and not REALLY preaching the fullness of truth.

We need teachers who are no respecters of persons.

We need to pray that GOd will free our theologians from the evil beast of “what the world will say.”

Watered down truth is little better than a lie.

 

[SouthpawLink]

The Church may not preach those aspects of its beliefs but it has not dropped them just chosen a different emphasise. but I agree we should pray for conversions especially for our lost sheep that they return.

Attending Protestant churches, mosques and synogouges signifies approval of their false worship… and let’s endorse a “healthy laicism” instead of the cooperation between Church and State, shall we? Ecumenism is no longer a ‘return’ or ‘absorption’…

The Vatican has said explicitly that the Eastern Orthodox no longer need to convert for salvation (Balamand, June 1993).

 

[Gregory_I]

THe ORthodox are schismatics, the punishment for which is hell.

I would convert.

PLease do NOT tell me we will go easier on them than on the SSPX.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by Catholicpotato
Council or no council I’m sure there are always those who break from and push the limits of church teaching, I have still yet to see after any council the type of absolute chaos that the western world has endured post V2. From the seminaries in the 70s to the progressive Catholic movements that are thankfully losing steam now. Or the “Catholic” colleges that went way off the left end. Who knows if it was V2 or just the mood of the modern world but many countries including the US have all but lost their faith. Once towering Cathedrals in europe are now just quaint reminders of a time past. The US has been put in the hands of a well meaning bishops conference that struggles like any Catholic entity would after such a revolutionary council liturgically speaking. This is truely a struggle for me, I respect the council, the popes and the current Church and am obedient to her. BUT there is something in my heart and soul that tells me that we have lost our way a little. I think V2 was needed but then it was abused.

Much change happened after Vatican II; but not much of it was a direct result of Vatican II; The most notable and damanaging changes which happened were "IN THE SPIRIT of Vatican II; not it’s directives.

The lead vechical of Vatican II “mandates” [Environment and Art in Catholic Worship] was not only never submitted to Rome for Approval; it was even presented formally in the NCCB for approval.

This manual for the destruction of once Catholic Churches being turned into mere “Gathering Spaces,” removal of Communion Rails; hidden Tabernacales; Ordinary ministers of the Eucharist [everyday-everywhere is hardly extrodinary]; communion under both species; altars facing the congregations ect. were innovations driven by the spirit if Vatican II not requirements of.

Friends God remains in charge. IMO the grand exodus of millions of Catholics from the CC; and the priest scandals, very low numbers of priest, are God’s way of warning us that DIRE events are yet to come. Under it all is the multitude of Abortins that have over half the “catholics-population” either out - right supporting it; or following the examples of many of “the cloth”; looking the other-way.

At some point warning will cease…

Still God wins; and we should not be surprised if further chastisements are comming our way.

Rather than be worried about these things; we need to PRAY; Sacrifice; know and publically live and defend our faith in charity. God is in charge!

Let us Pray,
God Bless,
Pat

 

[Portrait]

again i reitterate Tell me anything fundamental to the teaching of Christ that the Church has dropped ?/

Dear thirddec,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Whilst it is perfectly true that our Church has not formally repudiated any of its fundamental teaching respecting faith and morals, many intelligent Catholics, who have an understanding of the times, would freely admit that there is a global crisis within our beloved Church. Now whilst the milieu created by Vatican II is not wholly responsible for this sad state of affairs, it is surely sheer folly to assert that it played little or no part whatsoever and is hence in no way culpable.

The fact is that there are deep divisions within Holy Mother Church and if proof were needed of that then one only need look at the sad spectacle of the conservatives and liberals within the fold, who speak with very different voices and are decidedly not singing from the same hymn book. Actually, it not merely that they have different ‘emphases’: on many fundamental issues they are just diametrically opposed. Vatican II effectively brought these factions to the attention of the world at large. The balze of publicity which lit up the debate on the floor of St. Peter’s evinced how really deep those divsions were.

Then you have the destructive impact of neo-Catholic orthodoxy, which is so apt to deceive because it is essentially orthodox as touching essential dogmas. This influential movement within Catholicism has an immense following amongst the young and those who have crossed the Tiber from a conservative evangelicalism, because they are generally impatient with the ways of the pre-Vatican II Church and wrongly consider the “ancient paths” (cf. Jer. 6: 16) of those days to be an obstacle to the mission of the Church in the contemporary world. Since this trendy brand of Catholicism tends to embrace a hand in hand with the world sort of religious profession (‘Catholicism Lite’, to use George Weigel’s colourful metaphor), there is no disapproval of rock/pop music, unwholesome films and TV programmes and immodest styles of attire. On the contrary, there is an almost full and enthusiastic endorsement of this worldliness and a fantatical tendency to defend it come what may, notwithstanding the weight of evidence against the adoption of such things by those who are in earnest about the pursuit of holiness.

Now whilst others factors are also undeniably responsible for these worldly trends, such as the powerful drift of secularism and its corollary of failing to think with an authentic Christian mind, the whole atmosphere created in the aftermath of Vatican II made it very propitious to this misguided thinking and paved the way for innovations and novelties that effectively undermine the very faith we cherrish as Catholics. As Catholics we clearly ought not be conformed to the godless pursuits and fashions of this fallen world (cf. Rom. 12: 2, Coloss. 3: 1-3), yet we appear to be doing just that nowadys withour blush or shame!

Therefore, there are many reasons not to be cheerful as we look upon the plight of contemporary Catholicism. It is incontrovertible that the Church was administered a jolt at the Vatican II Council which led to dramatic innovations and, indeed, dramatic contests over the future and identity of the Church in the modern world. We should be under no illusions, there are formidable active forces arrayed against Holy Mother Church and the “ancient paths, where the good way is” (Jer. 6: 16) - the way that the Saints have consistently walked in down through the vicissitudes of time.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

The Vatican has said explicitly that the Eastern Orthodox no longer need to convert for salvation (Balamand, June 1993).

Dear SouthpawLink,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Would that possibly have something to do with the fact that our Church acknowledges the validity of Eastern Orthodox orders? If that is the case, then is it tacitly assumed that their sacraments are efficacious and thus able to impart sanctifying grace?

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

THere is noemphasis to be chosen but truth.

WHOLE truth,

and nothing BUT the whole and entire truth.

THose who think the church needs to EMPHASIZE different parts of its teaching are just pandering to mankind’s sensibilities and not REALLY preaching the fullness of truth.

We need teachers who are no respecters of persons.

We need to pray that GOd will free our theologians from the evil beast of “what the world will say.”

Watered down truth is little better than a lie.

Dear Gregory I,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

My sentiments entirely old chap. Jolly well said.

My big worry is that the Church has, since the 1960’s, been bending over backwards to present a more ‘user friendly’ image in a misguded effort to make itself more accessible and relevant. The mantra that is oft repeated nowadys is that the austerity of the pre-Vatican II Church and its rigorous approach to the performance of religious duties, is a hindrance to sophisticated 21st century man who finds such an approach most unappealing. We are told that we must needs be more worldly and culturally affirming and less world denying, if we are to elicit any response and encourage modern man to assume the mantel of our faith.

The Church will only inspire respect and awe when it strives to be most unlike the world by providing an impressive Christian counter-culture and not being so lily-livered about sanctity and separation from the godless world. As the Anglican, Dean Inge, once aptly remarked, “The church that marries the spirit of the age will be a widow in the next”.

Our lot is truly cast in perilous times and it behoves all the faithful to pray for a swift return to the “ancient paths, where the good way is”, for it is only then that we shall “find rest for (our) souls” (Jer. 6: 16).

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[fhansen]

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.”

Vat II was a triumph. The good fruits will come-and are even beginning to show up now. Patience is the order of the day.

 

[StJudePray4Me]

In my humble opinion (I am no scholar on the subject), it’s impossible to know exactly WHAT went wrong. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

Thousands of things happened over the past 45 years to influence society and the Church. I’ve noticed on these boards that often, VII is blamed for everything, on other threads, the advent of Birth Control and legalization of abortion is pointed to as the #1 problem. (this is in terms of the breakdown of the old-school Catholic family – not enough kids = not enough vocations, etc). Then, divorce became socially acceptable…and of course, there is the terrible sex abuse perpetrated by priests and covered up by the Church hierarchy. There was the 70s hedonistic drug and sex fueled hippie movement, the 80’s “me generation”… I am sure all these things influenced Catholic people and culture.

So some would point to VII and say, “Its all happened because of that! If not for that, things would be A-OK now,” but that is an opinion I believe to be factually unsupportable, because there is no “control group”, and there is no way to go back in time and prove that the subsequent trials and tribulations of the Church were avoidable. Society was changing radically – I wonder if younger Catholics would have turned away in equal numbers if nothing had changed? One can never know.

 

[Portrait]

In my humble opinion (I am no scholar on the subject), it’s impossible to know exactly WHAT went wrong. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

Thousands of things happened over the past 45 years to influence society and the Church. I’ve noticed on these boards that often, VII is blamed for everything, on other threads, the advent of Birth Control and legalization of abortion is pointed to as the #1 problem. (this is in terms of the breakdown of the old-school Catholic family – not enough kids = not enough vocations, etc). Then, divorce became socially acceptable…and of course, there is the terrible sex abuse perpetrated by priests and covered up by the Church hierarchy. There was the 70s hedonistic drug and sex fueled hippie movement, the 80’s “me generation”… I am sure all these things influenced Catholic people and culture.

So some would point to VII and say, “Its all happened because of that! If not for that, things would be A-OK now,” but that is an opinion I believe to be factually unsupportable, because there is no “control group”, and there is no way to go back in time and prove that the subsequent trials and tribulations of the Church were avoidable. Society was changing radically – I wonder if younger Catholics would have turned away in equal numbers if nothing had changed? One can never know.

Dear StJudePray4Me,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

As I stated previously (#65), other factors have undeniably contributed to our present plight, including the drift of secularism, to which the post Vatican II Catholic has succumbed with a degree of weakness and nervelessness unmatched in Christian history. However, the *spirit *of Vatican II cannot be utterly declared free of all blame, for such a position simply cannot be sustained in the light of the evidence, for example, the impact of liberalism which was given a fresh impetus at the Council with the key words spoken by John XXIII: “The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of the faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another”. In other words then the actual dogma is one thing but its expression is quite another. This made it possible for those of a liberal mindset to claim to be loyal to the Church whilst undermining papal authority and Catholic dogmas by reinterpreting them.

Society was certainly changing with the cultural and moral revolution of the 1960’s, but, alas, the Church allowed itself to change far too much by seeking to accommodate these changes by moving away from the austere Catholicism of the pre-Vatican II days. That was a monumental mistake and failure of leadership, that has had disastrous consequences in terms of an enfebled Catholicism that soft-pedals the arduous requirements of our most holy Faith. The call to sanctity and separation from the godless world is seldom heard nowadays and those who dare speak about such things are branded ‘Puritan prudes’ or are accused of being ‘overscrupulous’. Clearly, this would have been inconceivable in the pre-Vatican II Church period.

This toning down of things has actually been totally unfair to our youth, as well as to potential converts, since it has rendered our religion less demanding than it really is. We have widened the posts by making the Church and its faith more world-affirming and less world-denying. That was mistake - “Strait is the gate that leads to life, and few there be that find it”; “Many will strive to enter in and shall not be able”. It is better that people turn from this reality, than embrace a shallow profession of religion that does not foster the pursuit of holiness and the devout life.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[fhansen]

However, the *spirit *of Vatican II cannot be utterly declared free of all blame, for such a position simply cannot be sustained in the light of the evidence, for example, the impact of liberalism which was given a fresh impetus at the Council with the key words spoken by John XXIII: “The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of the faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another”. In other words then the actual dogma is one thing but its expression is quite another. This made it possible for those of a liberal mindset to claim to be loyal to the Church whilst undermining papal authority and Catholic dogmas by reinterpreting them.

But none of this makes JXXIIIs’ statement wrong.

 

[thirddec]

So many statements made that are pure opinion expressed as facts.

1. If only the Catholic Church had the power some would suggest she has to stop all the changes and movements in world opinions and beliefs but she didn’t so blaming Vatican ii has a king canute feel to it.
2. It was some sort of youth conspiacy that’s forced these changes ; what the same youth that you compllain wont even get to mass on Sunday.
3. All the problems were caused by liberals and its liberals that are somehow disloyal to the Pope and other Church Authority. Of course all the Traditionalists stayed with the Church expressing their Unity as well and helped to steer the changes in a moderate way (mmmmh)

This is Just another case of sowing disunity in the Church. Stop bickering and lets start getting back to the fundamentals of our faith.

ONE HOLY APOSTOLIC CATHOLIC CHURCH if God wanted us all to be clones or Robots he would have made us that way. All we should be doing now is trying to focus our energies of the Living Christ whose death and ressurection saved us and on his 2 great commandments Love God and Love your neighbour I’m sorry but I can’t see any of this in this pointing fingers and Labelling like some how being a Liberal or Traditionalist is evil. Unity in prayer ; worship and praise of God is not the same as conformity.

 

[Portrait]

But none of this makes JXXIIIs’ statement wrong.

Dear fhansen,

Cordial greetings.

Wrong perhaps not, but injudicious certainly since they are exceedingly ambiguous and thus admit of different interpretations. This has led to confusion with each faction appealing to them in support of their own position and agenda, which is exactly what has occured.

Many are of the opinion that JXXIII deliberately used such words so as to provide a loophole for the progressives, given Pope John’s own liberal leanings that is not an unreasonable assumption.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[thirddec]

Participation in this thread has opened my eyes to somethings i am concerned with . i have started a new thread called no more Liberal or Traditional to try to learn more for my own sake so at least i’m clearer what i’m promoting when I use certain words or others do. I would appreciate your imputs there

 

[Lormar]

Vat II was a triumph.

In all sincerity I ask, over what?

 

[fhansen]

Dear fhansen,

Cordial greetings.

Wrong perhaps not, but injudicious certainly since they are exceedingly ambiguous and thus admit of different interpretations. This has led to confusion with each faction appealing to them in support of their own position and agenda, which is exactly what has occured.

Many are of the opinion that JXXIII deliberately used such words so as to provide a loophole for the progressives, given Pope John’s own liberal leanings that is not an unreasonable assumption.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

I don’t know. Many misguided souls have obviously used statements from individuals as well as the councilliar docs to forward their own agendas. But people have done the same with the bible for centuries. And others have begun to use Vat II directives in the way intended, IMO, to our benefit. Take the subject of the OP, Pope Benedict. He, as well as his predecessor, has made great efforts and gone far in giving new expression to “the ancient doctrine of the deposit of the faith”. “Jesus of Nazareth” and his many encyclicals come to mind. Apparently he’s now not merely complaining about abuses but also making strides in putting the directives into practice himself.

 

[Portrait]

I don’t know. Many misguided souls have obviously used statements from individuals as well as the councilliar docs to forward their own agendas. But people have done the same with the bible for centuries. And others have begun to use Vat II directives in the way intended, IMO, to our benefit. Take the subject of the OP, Pope Benedict. He, as well as his predecessor, has made great efforts and gone far in giving new expression to “the ancient doctrine of the deposit of the faith”. “Jesus of Nazareth” and his many encyclicals come to mind. Apparently he’s now not merely complaining about abuses but also making strides in putting the directives into practice himself.

Dear fhansen,

Cordial greetings.

Nevertheless, these were key words spoken at the commencement of the Council and were necessarily bound to be significant as regards all that was to follow. Moreover, those progressives/neo-orthodox Catholics who would make their appeal to them, in support of their respective agendas, sincerely believed that they are anything but ‘misguided’. Since all the factions claim to be loyal to the church, who decides which group is interpreting the Councilliar documents correctly and authentically according to their true menaning?

Far too many Councilliar documents/encyclicals employ a sort of trendy academic parlance that is anything but intelligible and is often unnecessarily downright abstruse. Thus it is hardly surprising that such statements are variously interpreted according to the bias of those parties who utilising them to bolster their own pet theories. Like St. Paul, the Church should strive to use “great plainess of speech” so as not to give an uncertain sound on the trumpet.

Pope Bendict is a good man, but he needs to ensure that he is not swayed by secularism or tempted to make silly concessions to youth, that in the end will be detrimental to their spiritual life and thus not stimulate their desire to pursue holiness.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[fhansen]

Dear fhansen,

Cordial greetings.

Nevertheless, these were key words spoken at the commencement of the Council and were necessarily bound to be significant as regards all that was to follow. Moreover, those progressives/neo-orthodox Catholics who would make their appeal to them, in support of their respective agendas, sincerely believed that they are anything but ‘misguided’. Since all the factions claim to be loyal to the church, who decides which group is interpreting the Councilliar documents correctly and authentically according to their true menaning?

Far too many Councilliar documents/encyclicals employ a sort of trendy academic parlance that is anything but intelligible and is often unnecessarily downright abstruse. Thus it is hardly surprising that such statements are variously interpreted according to the bias of those parties who utilising them to bolster their own pet theories. Like St. Paul, the Church should strive to use “great plainess of speech” so as not to give an uncertain sound on the trumpet.

Pope Bendict is a good man, but he needs to ensure that he is not swayed by secularism or tempted to make silly concessions to youth, that in the end will be detrimental to their spiritual life and thus not stimulate their desire to pursue holiness.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

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.

 

[PA650]

In all sincerity I ask, over what?

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.