FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Archives (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Theology and Philosophy (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you (/showthread.php?tid=29485)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - lamentabili sane - 07-23-2009

(07-23-2009, 08:42 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(07-23-2009, 08:31 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(07-23-2009, 07:54 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(07-23-2009, 07:09 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: There is no reason to deface the Mystical Body of Christ with rash plastic surgery - She is how God made His Spouse to be. If the faithful did not like the way She looked, they will have to answer to God for their impudence at their death.

INP, I didn't mean the Church as a divine institution, but the human element. There can obviously be abuses by humans in the Church, past and present.

- Lisa

I'm sorry, I guess I don't understand what you mean or how that (i.e. "...I didn't mean the Church as a divine institution, but the human element. There can obviously be abuses by humans in the Church...") negates the role of the human element in the visible portion of the Mystical Body of Christ.

I mean the Church is full of sinners. We mess up sometimes. Men in authority abuse their power, etc. We as individuals must constantly strive for perfection. But the Church as a divine institution cannot change her doctrine or teach error. That's what I meant.

- Lisa

What do you call men who actually do change doctrine and teach errors?


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - Stubborn - 07-23-2009

(07-23-2009, 09:43 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(07-23-2009, 09:27 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(07-23-2009, 08:55 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Was something needed?  Yes.  What what came out of the Vatican II Council the thing that was needed?  No.

Briefly, the people that were causing the trouble in the 30s, 40s, and 50s went into the council, changed the agenda, and used it to get all kinds of ambiguous nonsense ratified to enable the junk we see now.

The problem was not a lack of involvement by the laity because the laity rarely got involved any more in 1650 than in 1950.  We have seen extreme involvement by the laity post-V2, and, it obviously turned out not-so-hot.

Now see, I think there was a severe lack of involvement of the laity, but not in the fact that they played no noteworthy roll at Mass.

I am speaking mainly about the fact that parents were at least somewhat negligent in promulgating the faith to their own children. Preferring un-involvement and leaving their primary duty of the eduction of their children to others.

Don't get me wrong, I could be off base, but my thinking here is because of how I was raised. Namely, the faith I have was handed down to me through my parents, as was handed down to them through their parents and so on. When they saw their children being taught and / or exposed to things harmful to the faith they were taught, my folks did whatever they had to do to maintain our education against the overwhelming influences that were everywhere, even in their own church.

Any way, sorry for the rant, but if the laity remained more involved in the faith, they would have stood fast and never changed.

No, you have a good point there, and I've heard it made before.  People sent their kids to Catholic school thinking it would make them Catholic and not doing anything at home (or checking on what they were teaching at the schools).  Even by the time I was in grade school in the 70's, there were few orthodox nuns left and I remember learning a bunch of iffy things.  My parents assumed I was being taught to be a good Catholics along with the 3 Rs.

Oh thank goodness you seem to completely understand what I mean.

Too many parents were lulled into trusting [previously trustworthy] Catholic authority and therefore took not only the faith, but also one of their primary duties as parents for granted, namely, the procreation and education of their children for granted.

Well, as it turns out, toady, we can see what happens when the faith is taken for granted. :(  


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - lamentabili sane - 07-23-2009

(07-23-2009, 09:15 PM)DrBombay Wrote: Most of the people who were alive prior to the Council want nothing to do with the traditional Mass or anything else from that time.  I say most.  Just because they memorized the Baltimore Catechism doesn't mean they knew anything more about the Faith than the average NO pew potato nowadays. Maybe they could repeat it by rote, but had they internalized it?  Evidence says no, they hadn't. 

So, yes, a Council was needed.  What was needed even more, however, was a strong pope to preside over it.  Instead, we got a naive optimist followed by an ineffectual hand wringer.  They sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind. 

A council was needed to do what? Condemn what error?


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - Mhoram - 07-23-2009

Maybe what was needed wasn't restoration (of a time that had problems) or renewal, but "rejuvenation."  People needed to be catechized better and encouraged to learn more about their Faith and witness to it, but they didn't need to have it turned upside down.  The dissent that was already growing in the 40s and 50s needed to be addressed, but that's the one thing that didn't happen, even though combating heresy seems to be the purpose of most Councils.

What's striking, looking back as someone who wasn't there, is that they didn't just make changes in the areas where there were problems, they changed everything.  It seems like nothing was left alone.  The altar wasn't just moved away from the wall, it was lowered and turned into a table.  The tabernacle wasn't just taken off the altar; many times it was moved into a separate room.  Latin wasn't replaced with the vernacular in a few helpful places, it was removed entirely (which goes against all the documents as far as I've seen).  They didn't just add some songs to the songbooks; they changed the words to all the old ones (and not just to feminize them, but to remove other traditional language too).  And so on and so on.  With all that, I doubt people felt like their religion was being renewed--more like it was being overhauled or replaced.

Michael Voris talks about how VII said lay people should be more involved in spreading the Gospel to the nations, meaning a lay ministry doing things the clergy and religious weren't doing, but that people interpreted "ministry" to mean doing more things at Church, including taking over for the priest by doing readings and EMHCs and so on.  With so many things changing, it was all so wide open, it seems like people thought there were no limits anymore; whatever anyone could stretch a VII document or a papal statement to support was fair game.


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - lamentabili sane - 07-23-2009

Quote:Too many parents were lulled into trusting [previously trustworthy] Catholic authority and therefore took not only the faith, but also one of their primary duties as parents for granted, namely, the procreation and education of their children for granted.

Catholics are supposed to obey authority. If the pre-V2 authority was "trustworthy" then how can you say the laity could have been TOO trusting of Catholic authority.

The problem was SIN...people needed to amend their lives and stop offending God, especially in the public forum.

This ecclesiological crisis is a consequence of sin, and NOT due to too much"trust" in the Authority of the Church (that Christ founded and shed His precious Blood for).



Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - Stubborn - 07-23-2009

(07-23-2009, 10:05 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
Quote:Too many parents were lulled into trusting [previously trustworthy] Catholic authority and therefore took not only the faith, but also one of their primary duties as parents for granted, namely, the procreation and education of their children for granted.

Catholics are supposed to obey authority. If the pre-V2 authority was "trustworthy" then how can you say the laity should have been TOO trusting of Catholic authority. The problem was SIN...people needed to amend their lives and stop offending God, especially in the public forum.

This ecclesiological crisis is a consequence of sin, and NOT due to too much"trust" in the Authority of the Church (that Christ founded and shed His precious Blood for).

Well, that is exactly it. The authority of the Church that Christ founded and shed his Precious Blood for -  suddenly changed everything that was previously taught for centuries to be unchangeable.
As a Catholic, we MUST obey proper authority, but, like St. Thomas More said (in Man for all seasons).....I am the King's (Church's) good servant - BUT GOD'S FIRST.


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - Historian - 07-23-2009

(07-23-2009, 10:05 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
Quote:Too many parents were lulled into trusting [previously trustworthy] Catholic authority and therefore took not only the faith, but also one of their primary duties as parents for granted, namely, the procreation and education of their children for granted.

Catholics are supposed to obey authority. If the pre-V2 authority was "trustworthy" then how can you say the laity could have been TOO trusting of Catholic authority.

The problem was SIN...people needed to amend their lives and stop offending God, especially in the public forum.

This ecclesiological crisis is a consequence of sin, and NOT due to too much"trust" in the Authority of the Church (that Christ founded and shed His precious Blood for).

One could say that the crisis was a consequence of the sin of presumption - that the fact God would be with His Church forever meant we didn't need to do much.


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - lamentabili sane - 07-23-2009

(07-23-2009, 10:23 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(07-23-2009, 10:05 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
Quote:Too many parents were lulled into trusting [previously trustworthy] Catholic authority and therefore took not only the faith, but also one of their primary duties as parents for granted, namely, the procreation and education of their children for granted.

Catholics are supposed to obey authority. If the pre-V2 authority was "trustworthy" then how can you say the laity could have been TOO trusting of Catholic authority.

The problem was SIN...people needed to amend their lives and stop offending God, especially in the public forum.

This ecclesiological crisis is a consequence of sin, and NOT due to too much"trust" in the Authority of the Church (that Christ founded and shed His precious Blood for).

One could say that the crisis was a consequence of the sin of presumption - that the fact God would be with His Church forever meant we didn't need to do much.

The proximate rule of Faith for a Catholic is THE PREACHING OF THE CHURCH (the LIVING ecclesiastical magisterium). That is not presumption.


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - SCG - 07-23-2009

doc Wrote:Most of the people who were alive prior to the Council want nothing to do with the traditional Mass or anything else from that time.  I say most

Well, I’ll speak for myself. The consensus was that the Mass (and religion in general) needed to change. Maybe there was something in the water, but most of us drank it. When the changes came I was teenager and as you know, most kids adjust. Those who were adults and middle age then (senior citizens now) were like RR’s mom who either dropped out and never came back, or stayed and got all happy about the changes. This was definitely the “I’m gonna find myself” generation and the irony is they lost something very precious. 

Now the people who were old when the changes came were truly lost.. just lost. But they bit the bullet and kept coming every Sunday because that’s what they were taught to do. God bless them, they are long gone from this world now. At any rate, Doc, I think you are right about most.

doc Wrote:Just because they memorized the Baltimore Catechism doesn't mean they knew anything more about the Faith than the average NO pew potato nowadays. Maybe they could repeat it by rote, but had they internalized it?  Evidence says no, they hadn't.

Now I agree with you 99.9 percent here, with the disclaimer that I think memorizing the Baltimore Catechism is much better than the spiritual pabulum children were fed in the 70s and 80s, which was so lukewarm they vomited upon swallowing, and thus retained little or nothing. I, on the other hand, knew my Commandments backwards and forwards … in order! But IF, as you say, it is not internalized (I like that word!) then it was no more nourishing than the puked-up pabulum of today. I will have to say, however, that if a Catholic of my generation later experiences a re-conversion, they will at least have a firm foundation to stand on. Much of what I learned as a child never truly left me. It was retained in my being and made a difference in forming my decision to return to the Church; e.g. the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the primacy of Peter and church leadership, the communion of Saints, etc. How many baby Catholics today are even taught this? It’s pathetic. Like my pastor says, every DRE from the past 30 years should be taken out and shot.

doc Wrote:So, yes, a Council was needed.  What was needed even more, however, was a strong pope to preside over it.  Instead, we got a naive optimist followed by an ineffectual hand wringer.  They sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind.

Now wait, Doc. The Pope who presided over most of Vatican II and issued the new Mass is the same Pope who wrote Humane Vitae, and he was mocked by liberal clergy and theologians and ignored by many Catholics. No, I can’t say Pope Paul was an ineffectual hand wringer or a Modernist hell-bent in destroying the Church. In the late 60s, Humane Vitae was a big issue. Outside of that, I think that all Post Council Popes have been weak and timid with regards to the liturgy and the demands of the bishops. Too much local jurisdiction was given to the bishops at Vatican II and now the Popes are stuck with this.

- Lisa


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - lamentabili sane - 07-23-2009

Quote:Now wait, Doc. The Pope who presided over most of Vatican II and issued the new Mass is the same Pope who wrote Humane Vitae, and he was mocked by liberal clergy and theologians and ignored by many Catholics. No, I can’t say Pope Paul was an ineffectual hand wringer or a Modernist hell-bent in destroying the Church. In the late 60s, Humane Vitae was a big issue. Outside of that, I think that all Post Council Popes have been weak and timid with regards to the liturgy and the demands of the bishops. Too much local jurisdiction was given to the bishops at Vatican II and now the Popes are stuck with this.

The same pope who let a theological commission "study" ABC for 5 years before Humanae Vitae. In 1930, Casti Connubii explicitly condemned in principle any form of ABC, as well as abortion. The question "when does life begin" is irrelevant, as ABORTION was condemned.

Paul VI confused things by his actions.