FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Do we all fisheaters agree that this crisis is dogmatic and doctrinal...
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
at its root and core and not merely disciplinary and liturgical?

I have not really made up my mind one way or the other yet. I mean I believe that this is a dogmatic crisis, that is, a heresy, at it's roots; but I don't know if the new canon law, liturgy, etc. are intrinsically erroneous. They are good cases on both sides. St. Pope Pius X's Priestly Society shows the fruits of the Holy Ghost and fights real heresy, paganism, etc., but Pope Benedict XVI is reasonable (to me at least) with his hermeneutic of continuity.
dogmatic and dogtrinal.

Of course...the collapse of the Liturgy came from a denial of Faith. Now the collapse of the Liturgy certainly made the spreading of error easier, but things would not have fallen apart so quickly with the new Mass, unless the structures were already weak and hallow.

I read one priest describe the beautiful Liturgy before Vatican II but with no firmness in doctrine as "Cake" as opposed to the "Bread" for which they yearned for.
It's both. At the higher levels, it's doctrinal; at the lower levels, the crisis manifests itself in liturgy, etc.
(08-08-2009, 07:09 PM)Credo Wrote: [ -> ]It's both. At the higher levels, it's doctrinal; at the lower levels, the crisis manifests itself in liturgy, etc.

Agreed. At its very base it is doctrinal but it is spread by a lack of disciplinary action and rampant liturgical abuses.


pax
I personally think it is diabolical to be honest, fortunately it is only temporary as the gates of Hell will not prevail against her.
i would of picked both but there was no option for it. thats why polls like this suck. anyhoo
ITS DIABOLICAL no doubt about it
It's both doctrinal and liturgical, but its provenance is liturgical.  Substance follows form.  There were bound to be doctrinal abuses when the Second Vatican Council so thoroughly trashed the Traditional Latin Mass.  OK, maybe V-2 didn't trash the Mass, but those who implemented its reforms certainly did.     

I'm a first generation Italian-American.  I'm 52 years old, so my parents' generation was raised under Vatican I.  While I would characterize most of the people of that generation as lukewarm Catholics at best--the males rarely attended Mass then and they rarely attend now--they stayed married.  That says something.  Especially when their kids, my coevals, are all on second and third marriages. 

I don't want to read too much into this.  I know divorce is a complex phenomenon and many social forces have combined to make it more prevalent.  But I believe the liturgical abuses arising out of V-2 had something to do with it.  If the Church can play fast and loose with the rules governing the summit of Christian worship, then why not play fast and loose with the indissolubility of Christian marriage?  For that matter, why not play fast and loose with any dogma? 

~Anam-Chara
(08-08-2009, 07:15 PM)AntoniusMaximus Wrote: [ -> ]I personally think it is diabolical to be honest, fortunately it is only temporary as the gates of Hell will not prevail against her.

As Sister Lucia said, "we live in an age of diabolical disorientation." When it comes to politics I feel I see things pretty clearly, but getting into the spiritual realm I often feel lost.
I think its liturgical. Most people dont read Vatican documents especialy back then. SO the change in the Mass had to be the most damaging to peoples faith. Martin Luther said destroy the Mass and we will destroy the Church. I am sure thats the same creed that Bugnini the freemason and the other reformers followed.
Pages: 1 2 3