FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Can Catholics even preach anymore?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(08-02-2014, 04:44 PM)Heorot Wrote: [ -> ]I am concerned with the very mindset and texts of the last ecumenical Council, and of the whole college of bishops in the world.

My brother, I was very serious in making my post.  I did not intend to mock or belittle you or formerbuddhist.  God forbid it!  You two are evidently suffering, the last thing you need for me is to come and stick a needle in your backsides!  I do not want you to leave Holy Church, I do not want you to leave the ark of salvation.  So I beg you, that you would only read my posts with the understanding that I bear no ill will against you.

Now, my post was not aimed at any specific individual, but I believe I have addressed genuine problems within the traditional Catholic community.  But, in light of your own post, I realise that my words will not be of great benefit as they do not actually address your worries.  I hope to do that now.

Your problem is the texts of the Second Vatican Council?  I maintain that they are entirely orthodox in their doctrine, and entirely abysmal in their construction.  But that they are orthodox, and that there are a great deal of good contained within them (such as the delegation to the laity to say the Divine Office).  Lets take as an example the dogma that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.

Do you believe that the Second Vatican Council teaches that there is salvation outside of the Catholic Church?

In Jesus and Mary,
Prie dieu!
Heorot Wrote:Which Christ? The Orthodox Christ? The Trad Christ? The Mariachi Christ? He is different in each theology, whether slightly so or very much so.

The Christ of the Gospels.  The Christ of the Eucharist -- the One who comes down and pours Himself out and gives Himself away.  The Crucified.  The Risen.  The Christ in the poor -- materially and spiritually.

Get out of yourself.  Pray.  Serve.  Do the will of God.

The agony I respect is the agony of a person striving to fulfill his duties of state and patiently bearing the sufferings God permits. 

This isn't it.
(08-02-2014, 05:03 PM)Prie dieu Wrote: [ -> ]My brother, I was very serious in making my post.  I did not intend to mock or belittle you or formerbuddhist.  God forbid it!  You two are evidently suffering, the last thing you need for me is to come and stick a needle in your backsides!  I do not want you to leave Holy Church, I do not want you to leave the ark of salvation.  So I beg you, that you would only read my posts with the understanding that I bear no ill will against you.

Now, my post was not aimed at any specific individual, but I believe I have addressed genuine problems within the traditional Catholic community.  But, in light of your own post, I realise that my words will not be of great benefit as they do not actually address your worries.  I hope to do that now.

Your problem is the texts of the Second Vatican Council?  I maintain that they are entirely orthodox in their doctrine, and entirely abysmal in their construction.  But that they are orthodox, and that there are a great deal of good contained within them (such as the delegation to the laity to say the Divine Office).  Lets take as an example the dogma that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.

Do you believe that the Second Vatican Council teaches that there is salvation outside of the Catholic Church?

In Jesus and Mary,
Prie dieu!

Thank you for modifying your approach to the circumstances. As I said, bad liturgies are not the Faith. Bad popes are not the Faith. The Faith alone is the Faith. I will not leave the Roman Church, and that was not my intent with making this thread.

The intent here is to ask questions. For example, if the texts of the last Council are orthodox in doctrine but abysmal in construction, they are structured in such a way that the doctrine is obscured ... in which case, they are abysmal both in doctrine and construction. How can that be? Why? More importantly, how can we say anything with certainty to those outside the Church, when all is abysmally-presented and uncertainly-proposed? We may be clear, but we will only lead pagans and atheists to an unclear Church. That would be pointless...

As to the denial of extra ecclesiam nulla sallus: it is more by insinuation and connotation, than by explicit denotation. Unitatis Redintegratio par. 3 is probably the most infamous example of this. The separated brethren can "engender a life of grace", and have access to the "communion of salvation". In that case, what's the point of the Catholic Church? If grace can be received outside Her bounds, then membership in that Body is not strictly necessary for the reception of grace. No, I am not putting the Holy Spirit in a box... but He Himself is faithful to His promises: one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism... and one Body of Christ, no?

(08-02-2014, 05:04 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote: [ -> ]The Christ of the Gospels.  The Christ of the Eucharist.  The Crucified.  The Risen.  The Christ in the poor -- materially and spiritually.

Get out of yourself.  Pray.  Serve.  Do the will of God.

The agony I respect is the agony of a person striving to fulfill his duties of state and patiently bearing the sufferings God permits. 

This isn't it.

Ultimately, if there's no where to serve, there is no service to be given. What is the point of giving drink to the thirsty, food to the hungry, clothing to the naked, etc., if there is no absolute Truth to which they can be led by loving kindness? Our own Church is acting and teaching as if every way is valid. Let's just "be nice", then? The only reason Christ commands us to do good works is for the benefit of souls, that they may see Him working in us, and so cling to Him. The modern Church makes that very difficult. I just don't have the energy to combat both the World and my own Church.

Do you think it's illegitimate to struggle with the foundations of your beliefs? If atheists don't agonize over the existence of God, for example, they will remain in darkness. Only struggle brings results. We're different personalities, but I see in you someone who has gone through this in the past and plowed through the darkness with sheer bloody-minded faith in Christ. It is not something I have attained yet. Be merciful to me.
(08-02-2014, 05:15 PM)Heorot Wrote: [ -> ]The only reason Christ commands us to do good works is for the benefit of souls, that they may see Him working in us, and so cling to Him.

Not true.  Caritas is for its own sake, and ultimately for the glory of God, not for evangelism or as as adjunct to apologetics.

Quote:Do you think it's illegitimate to struggle with the foundations of your beliefs?

I think it's illegitimate to wallow in these problems.  It becomes a positive vice, related to the sins of curiosity, despair and acedia.  That is what I'm seeing here and I'm calling you on it.

I suggest that you read this excellent article about dwelling on ecclesiastical controversy and its deleterious effect on one's spiritual life:  http://te-deum.blogspot.com/2013/12/why-...risti.html
FWIW, I don't think I suffer very much. Maybe I should. Basically what you do is, you just realize that something is amiss with the Novus Ordo, and you get as far away from it as you know how to get, while still remaining apostolic. So for example, it's no good becoming a Hindu, or a Protestant, or a New-ager. Those don't count. I think everyone here, even the most die-hard pro-Vatican people, has to go through some sort of mental gyration to make it work. If you're not stretched by this, you're not paying attention. And probably most nominal Catholics aren't.
(08-02-2014, 05:20 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote: [ -> ]Not true.  Caritas is for its own sake, and ultimately for the glory of God, not for evangelism or as as adjunct to apologetics.

Isn't the ultimate glory of God - vis-a-vis the Gospel - to bring human beings to Him via all means necessary? "The glory of God is man fully alive", says the great Ignatius of Antioch. How is God's glory served when even the Church contradicts herself by asking her missionaries to co-operate with heretical missionaries (Ad Gentes, par. 29)?

I guess I'll have to try to stop being bothered by these things. I don't understand how to do it, yet. Having been an atheist - used to questioning everything in despair - and having become one of those pesky converts, I take many things absolutely, identifying God with the Church in perhaps too radical a manner?

Quote:I think it's illegitimate to wallow in these problems.  It becomes a positive vice, related to the sins of curiosity and acedia.  That is what I'm seeing here and I'm calling you on it.

I suggest that you read this excellent article about dwelling on ecclesiastical controversy and its deleterious effect on one's spiritual life:  http://te-deum.blogspot.com/2013/12/why-...risti.html

I appreciate you calling me out on it. Acedia is evil. Thank you for the link. I am a sinner, and need a ton of encouragement.

(08-02-2014, 05:25 PM)liebestat Wrote: [ -> ]FWIW, I don't think I suffer very much. Maybe I should. Basically what you do is, you just realize that something is amiss with the Novus Ordo, and you get as far away from it as you know how to get, while still remaining apostolic. So for example, it's no good becoming a Hindu, or a Protestant, or a New-ager. Those don't count. I think everyone here, even the most die-hard pro-Vatican people, has to go through some sort of mental gyration to make it work. If you're not stretched by this, you're not paying attention. And probably most nominal Catholics aren't.

These are sure sayings, worthy of belief.
Going a little deeper, I have found clarifications issued in the last few decades, namely:

Evangelii nuntiandi (1975)
Redemptoris missio (1990)
the 2007 Doctrinal Note on aspects of evangelization (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...ne_en.html)

I am a presumptuous and hysterical fool. Please forgive me, for these modern documents affirm the undying need to proselytize members of other religions. Béni soit le Seigneur.
(08-02-2014, 04:50 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-02-2014, 04:44 PM)Heorot Wrote: [ -> ]Please try to respect and be merciful to those who have an inner agony. Not everyone has so strong a faith in the Church as you might. What a phlegmatic lawyer perceives as stupid drama might be the throes of real spiritual torment in a melancholic.

I'm a melancholic/choleric, so believe me, I know stupid drama.

I speak from experience.  Let go of this agony.  It's largely self-inflicted.  You guys are being major drama queens.  You don't have to be preoccupied with these issues.  You are missing your life, including your life in Christ.
Clare Brigid, I know you are conversing with Heorot, however, allow me to thank you for your response, as I too was over reacting to this drama. Sometimes, it's nice to have someone tell you to let it go.
(08-02-2014, 05:15 PM)Heorot Wrote: [ -> ]Thank you for modifying your approach to the circumstances. As I said, bad liturgies are not the Faith. Bad popes are not the Faith. The Faith alone is the Faith. I will not leave the Roman Church, and that was not my intent with making this thread.

The intent here is to ask questions. For example, if the texts of the last Council are orthodox in doctrine but abysmal in construction, they are structured in such a way that the doctrine is obscured ... in which case, they are abysmal both in doctrine and construction. How can that be? Why? More importantly, how can we say anything with certainty to those outside the Church, when all is abysmally-presented and uncertainly-proposed? We may be clear, but we will only lead pagans and atheists to an unclear Church. That would be pointless...

You have answered your own question.  Apply the same standards to our bishops and our liturgy as you would to the conciliar texts.  Is not the liturgy's purpose to clearly and plainly teach the truths of the Catholic faith and lead souls to their sanctification?  Buy you accept the possibility of a bad and substandard liturgy, whilst still maintaining that it is liturgical prayer and, in the case of the Mass, the Holy Sacrifice.  Is a bishop's purpose not to preach the Good News?  And is it also not true that many bishops by their actions also obscure the Gospel because of their sins and errors?  By living lavish lifestyles thus scandalizing the poor, or by affirming non-Catholics in their sad state and thus depriving them of the helps of the Catholic Church?  If I said to you that God is just, and if all I ever spoke to you about was that God is just, I would certainly be speaking a truth.  But I would not be preaching the fullness of truth.  The Church will always speak the truth, but she will not always do so perfectly.

Case in point.  The Council of Chalcedon was an absolute mess in the history of the Church that resulted in the wholesale schism of thousands of people over matters of mere linguistics.  Both sides claimed Saint Cyril, none of them could speak in the same language!  The Christological truths were proclaimed at Chalcedon, but they could have been proclaimed in a much more perfect way than they were.

Quote:As to the denial of extra ecclesiam nulla sallus: it is more by insinuation and connotation, than by explicit denotation. Unitatis Redintegratio par. 3 is probably the most infamous example of this. The separated brethren can "engender a life of grace", and have access to the "communion of salvation". In that case, what's the point of the Catholic Church? If grace can be received outside Her bounds, then membership in that Body is not strictly necessary for the reception of grace. No, I am not putting the Holy Spirit in a box... but He Himself is faithful to His promises: one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism... and one Body of Christ, no?

Unitatis Redintegratio alone is enough of a defence against any modernist or heretical interpretation.  We are told in Unitatis Redintegratio #3 that "it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation."  This can only be understood as to mean that unless they are joined to the Roman Catholic Church then they will not attain unto eternal life, because although they may possess some of the means of salvation (such as Holy Baptism), then cannot fully profit from them outwith the Catholic church.  By baptism we enter the Church as through a door.  Baptism unites us to the Mystical Body of Christ.  Unitatis Redintegratio is entirely right to reaffirm this reality, that there is a connection between baptized non-Christians and the Catholic Church.  Because as baptism unites us to the Mystical Body of Christ, and the Catholic Church is fully that same Mystical Body, then baptism also unites us to the Catholic Church, although it can be an imperfect communion (such as lacking visible communion).

You are right to say that the denial of the dogma that there is no salvation outside of the Church is made by nsinuation and connotation.  But the guilt then is not with the Council, but with the liberal and modernist and ill-willed hearts that have perverted things to their end.  Nowhere at all does the Second Vatican Council state that anyone that perishes in a state of separation from the Church, can attain unto eternal life, though many a pastor may say otherwise!  What other Conciliar doctrine troubles you?

In Jesus and Mary,
Prie dieu!
The thing is,Vatican II and everything following in its wake is so radically different than pre Conciliar Catholicism it takes years of mental gymnastics to try to reconcile the two. Vatican II was a rupture, period, close the book. Most Catholics and non Catholics see it that way too and there's not a whole lot that has been done by the leaders of the Church to give a different impression. If things look different it probably is different. The bare bones validity argument for the new Mass is kind of reductionist and ridiculous to me,as if all that matters is bare bones "validity" how legalistic! As far.as these modern Popes go, they act like the CEO of a company who makes plugs for competitors products while apologizing for their own. How long would we take Nabisco seriously if they kept pushing for Kelloggs, just to use that example. There is a crisis in Catholicism and quite frankly its not easy to see as the obvious "true Church" in my eyes. I know I'm not alone. To me just reading Dom.Kirbys excellent blog (which I'm fond of by the way) is not enough. The credibility of Roman Catholic claims is seriously weakened by Vatican II, its aftermath and the half century of officially sanctioned false ecumenism,wrecovation and rewriting of Catholicism at the hands of the popes and bishops. The Church of Pius XII is OVER, the Council, its decrees and it's committee created rites are here to stay. There are good things going on on a grassroots level but, add i said officially the "new springtime" is still blooming, the episcopal gardeners still enthusiastically tending its bitter and rotten crops. Should we just hunker down and pray that the faith we profess that the last 5 popes and 60 years worth of bishops don't seem to won't be in vain?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7