D
deMontfort
Guest
^^^^^^ That link is to a video put out by a sedevacantist group.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
D
deMontfort
Guest
We have one up the street from us. In a way, they’re the Catholic equivalent of Fundament Independent Baptists.
J
Johann_du_Toit
Guest
As Cardinal Robert Sarah put it, there is a big difference between the true intentions the Church Fathers of the council and the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II”,
The former is in harmony with the development of Church doctrine, and the latter is merely a figleaf by dissidents to use as an excuse to throw off all constraints and reject any Church doctrine they are not happy about.
The former is in harmony with the development of Church doctrine, and the latter is merely a figleaf by dissidents to use as an excuse to throw off all constraints and reject any Church doctrine they are not happy about.
M
Mr_Freeze
Guest
It’s not so much that I think it ‘caused’ the problems, but it didn’t fix anything either. Born before the council, and have been witnessing the disaster ever since. Too many in the church think the church began with that council.
It’s simple:
It’s simple:
- Did VII “change” anything?
-“No.” says the post VII church. - Does post VII teaching square with pre VII teaching?
-Not always
Last edited:
A
Aulef
Guest
On the one hand, Vatican II is offical. We can’t deny this fact.
On the other hand, There are many reasons why Vatican II is to be taken carefully. The way things happened there and it’s consequences in Catholic faith are object of strong debates.
Regarding this topic, I strongly recommend everyone to read “THE RHINE FLOWS INTO THE TIBER: A HISTORY OF VATICAN II” , by priest Ralph Witgen. It is mind opening.
On the other hand, There are many reasons why Vatican II is to be taken carefully. The way things happened there and it’s consequences in Catholic faith are object of strong debates.
Regarding this topic, I strongly recommend everyone to read “THE RHINE FLOWS INTO THE TIBER: A HISTORY OF VATICAN II” , by priest Ralph Witgen. It is mind opening.
E
edwest211
Guest
By doing what we are supposed to do, every day. Living out a Christ-like life. Not participating with the world and doing wrong.
D
deMontfort
Guest
Good article.
E
edwest211
Guest
That was part of it. Before stepping down as Pope, Pope Benedict mentioned this twice. It was that important:
E
edwest211
Guest
This is not accurate:
Pope Benedict
"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.
"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.
“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”
“arbitrary deformations” were not caused by Vatican II.
Pope Benedict
"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.
"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.
“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”
“arbitrary deformations” were not caused by Vatican II.
E
edwest211
Guest
That’s right.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
TL; DR and I have no idea how the little of it I did read relates to anything I said. If you didn’t mean to respond to me, sorry.
Muting thread now as I’ve said my piece. Have a nice day!
Muting thread now as I’ve said my piece. Have a nice day!
A
Ann_Stanton
Guest
You do realize that not all Baby Boomers are alike. During VII almost all of them were under the legal age (21). Most were still young children. Are you a Boomer or just wanting someone to blame?
P
phil19034
Guest
The Baby Boomer generation were the ones who were still in formation when the crazyness was starting. Their parents could not explain to the Baby Boomers Church teaching because they were confused.You do realize that not all Baby Boomers are alike. During VII almost all of them were under the legal age (21). Most were still young children. Are you a Boomer or just wanting someone to blame?
Then, as the Baby Boomers had kids, they solidified the craziness into parish life as they took the reigns from their parents in the 80s, and the Baby Boomers still have NOT relinquished control of parish life & society as a whole to the younger generations.
Generation X will most likely be skipped over completely.
At least in the Church, the Baby Boomers took control of parish life pretty young and still have it.
E
edwest211
Guest
That is totally false. The Baby Boomers are not in control of the Church. Society and the Body of Christ in the West were slowly poisoned over a period of decades. If we had gone from Ozzie and Harriet to Two and a Half Men overnight, people would have started throwing out their TV sets. I watched on TV as Beatles records were burned and trashed after John Lennon said The Beatles were probably more important than Jesus. We went to Catholic school and we went to Church once a week during school hours. The nuns explained it to us. We had Religion Class. Our parents weren’t stupid. “I’ll see you after Church” was common on Sundays when stores were closed. It was a day of rest.
"[Catholic Caucus] Video: Archbishop’s sermon praising Old Rite goes viral
Catholic Herald ^ | May 2, 2018 | Nick Hallett
Posted on 5/2/2018, 11:32:09 AM by ebb tide
"Young people are drawn to the Traditional Latin Mass by its “beauty”, “sense of mystery” and “transcendence”, Archbishop Alexander K Sample has said.
"Speaking during a Pontifical High Mass in the Extraordinary Form at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington DC, Archbishop Sample praised Pope Benedict XVI for the “great gift” of Summorum Pontificum – the document that allowed the traditional Mass to be more widely celebrated – and said the “reverence and sacredness” of the old Mass would enrich the Novus Ordo.
"The Archbishop of Portland, Oregon also noted how many young people were in the congregation, saying: “You are a sign—a great sign—of encouragement and hope for the Church tossed about these days on the troubled waters of secularism and relativism. As they say: you ‘get it.’”
The sermon – which was broadcast live on EWTN – has been widely shared on social media. Archbishop Sample added: “Maybe the experience of these young people growing up with the Ordinary Form did not carry with it the beauty, reverence, prayerfulness, sense of mystery and transcendence, or wonder and awe that the Traditional Latin Mass has provided for them.
“Perhaps this is the answer to the question… about why so many young people are drawn to the Holy Mass celebrated according to the 1962 Missal.”
"[Catholic Caucus] Video: Archbishop’s sermon praising Old Rite goes viral
Catholic Herald ^ | May 2, 2018 | Nick Hallett
Posted on 5/2/2018, 11:32:09 AM by ebb tide
"Young people are drawn to the Traditional Latin Mass by its “beauty”, “sense of mystery” and “transcendence”, Archbishop Alexander K Sample has said.
"Speaking during a Pontifical High Mass in the Extraordinary Form at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington DC, Archbishop Sample praised Pope Benedict XVI for the “great gift” of Summorum Pontificum – the document that allowed the traditional Mass to be more widely celebrated – and said the “reverence and sacredness” of the old Mass would enrich the Novus Ordo.
"The Archbishop of Portland, Oregon also noted how many young people were in the congregation, saying: “You are a sign—a great sign—of encouragement and hope for the Church tossed about these days on the troubled waters of secularism and relativism. As they say: you ‘get it.’”
The sermon – which was broadcast live on EWTN – has been widely shared on social media. Archbishop Sample added: “Maybe the experience of these young people growing up with the Ordinary Form did not carry with it the beauty, reverence, prayerfulness, sense of mystery and transcendence, or wonder and awe that the Traditional Latin Mass has provided for them.
“Perhaps this is the answer to the question… about why so many young people are drawn to the Holy Mass celebrated according to the 1962 Missal.”
Last edited:
J
JimG
Guest
Yes, I can imagine the outrage that would have erupted had such a stark transition occured. It was not enough, though, for media to transition from family values to sexually explicit comedy. Previous shows such as Ozzie and Harriet had to be mocked, as they have been and continue to be.If we had gone from Ozzie and Harriet to Two and a Half Men overnight, people would have started throwing out their TV sets.
P
phil19034
Guest
That’s not what I’m referring to.That is totally false. The Baby Boomers are not in control of the Church. Society and the Body of Christ in the West were slowly poisoned over a period of decades. If we had gone from Ozzie and Harriet to Two and a Half Men overnight, people would have started throwing out their TV sets. I watched on TV as Beatles records were burned and trashed after John Lennon said The Beatles were probably more important than Jesus. We went to Catholic school and we went to Church once a week during school hours. The nuns explained it to us. We had Religion Class. Our parents weren’t stupid. “I’ll see you after Church” was common on Sundays when stores were closed. It was a day of rest.
I’m simply saying that as a Generation Xer myself, our generation is still not in control of parish leadership (lay mostly) and is not in control of the govt.
The Baby Boomers still wield a great deal of power and influence, and they took reigns from their parents rather young.
Personally, I believe that Generation X will most likely be skipped over.
E
edwest211
Guest
The Church is about fidelity, not control. Gen Xer’s fall into the 1961 to 1981 time period. The Baby Boomer generation ends at 1964. That would put the youngest Boomer at age 54, with most a lot older.
We still live in feudal times. The top 2 percent of the population has been gaining more and more wealth, and tax breaks, since 1964. The wealthy are in control regardless of age. Just like it’s always been. Bill Gates is 62, with a net worth of US $93.2 Billion as of June 2018. Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook is 34 and worth US $74.7 Billion (2018). The peasants earn a great deal less, as it’s always been.
We still live in feudal times. The top 2 percent of the population has been gaining more and more wealth, and tax breaks, since 1964. The wealthy are in control regardless of age. Just like it’s always been. Bill Gates is 62, with a net worth of US $93.2 Billion as of June 2018. Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook is 34 and worth US $74.7 Billion (2018). The peasants earn a great deal less, as it’s always been.
A
Ann_Stanton
Guest
Sorry, but my mother was not “confused” by Vatican II. She raised my whole family to be good Catholics. We were taught how to inform our consciences. She had Catholic reading from both the left and right. We read Our Sunday Visitor every week. She taught us how to pray the rosary. She talked about abortion etc. She was not against Vatican II and none or her descendants are against it either. No, I do not feel in control of the church because we all play a part in the church despite our ages. Perhaps, some in other generations need to find their niche in the church. This is not the fault of just the Boomers.
C
CTBcin
Guest
While I agree that this is true, I think the issue is much more complicated than that.Why are some people so against Vatican 2?
The answer is quite obvious .
It’s the same reason why some people were against Vatican 1 , and why some people were against all 21 of the Church’s Ecumenical Councils .
Some people don’t like submitting to authority .
- Status
- Not open for further replies.