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 - Stubborn - 07-23-2009

(07-23-2009, 10:29 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(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.

Well that may be the "proximate rule of faith" (never heard of that one) but the primary duty of each and every individual human being has never changed, namely, to get to heaven. . . . . . ."Why did God make us? God made us to know love and serve Him in this world........"

It is ultimately up to us to "persevere unto the end", yet the "LIVING ecclesiastical magisterium" somehow broadcast that all we needed to do was be sincere in whatever belief we happened to be a part of so as to merit favor with God and eternal salvation.

Regardless of teachings or wordings, the above message got out loud and clear - and completely contradicts the faith as promulgated since the time of Our Lord here on earth................why did the masses choose to believe  and follow it? Well, that's the "wide road" that Our Lord said that most folks take.



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

(07-23-2009, 10:47 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(07-23-2009, 10:29 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(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.

Well that may be the "proximate rule of faith" (never heard of that one) but the primary duty of each and every individual human being has never changed, namely, to get to heaven. . . . . . ."Why did God make us? God made us to know love and serve Him in this world........"

It is ultimately up to us to "persevere unto the end", yet the "LIVING ecclesiastical magisterium" somehow broadcast that all we needed to do was be sincere in whatever belief we happened to be a part of so as to merit favor with God and eternal salvation.

Regardless of teachings or wordings, the above message got out loud and clear - and completely contradicts the faith as promulgated since the time of Our Lord here on earth................why did the masses choose to believe  and follow it? Well, that's the "wide road" that Our Lord said that most folks take.

"Van Noort, Christs Church, Dogmatic Theology" Wrote:Sequel

The rule of faith. It seems timely to add here a few remarks on the rule of faith. This term signifies the standard or norm according to which each individual Christian must determine what is the material object of his faith.

Protestants claim that the written Word of God, Holy Scripture, and that alone, is the one rule of faith. Catholics, on the other hand, even though they, too, admit that our faith must be regulated in the final analysis by the Word of God — including tradition as well as Scripture — hold that the proximate and immediate rule of faith — that rule to which each of the faithful and each generation of the faithful must look directly — is the preaching of the Church. And so, according to Catholics, there exists a twofold rule of faith: one remote and one proximate. The remote rule of faith is the Word of God (handed down in writing or orally), which was directly entrusted to the Church's rulers that from it they might teach and guide the faithful. The proximate rule of faith, from which the faithful, one and all, are bound to accept their faith and in accordance with which they are to regulate it, is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium.(27) The following assertions concern the proximate rule of faith.

1. The Church's preaching was established by Christ Himself as the rule of faith. This can be proved from Matthew 28:19—20 and Mark 16:15—16; the command to teach all nations certainly implies a corresponding duty on the part of the nations to believe whatever the apostles and their successors teach, On the other hand, there is no notice anywhere of Christ's having commanded the apostles to give the people the doctrine of salvation in writing, and never did He command the faithful as a whole to seek their faith in the Bible.(28)

2. The Church's preaching is a rule of faith which is nicely accommodated to people's needs. For (a) it is an easy rule, one that can be observed by all alike, even the uneducated and unlettered. What could be easier than to give ear to a magisterium that is always at hand and always preaching? (b) It is a safe rule, for the Church's teaching office is infallible in safeguarding and presenting Christ's doctrine. © It is a living rule, in accordance with which it is possible in any age to explain the meaning of doctrines and to put an end to controversies.



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

I don't know.........I was taught the same teachings that all Catholics (as far as I knew) were taught, including: "even if an angel from heaven were to come down and try to teach you something contrary to what you know to be the truth, that it was a devil in disguise".

So to me, if a devil can fool someone into thinking that he is really an angel, nothing is impossible for the enemy.




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

(07-23-2009, 10:03 PM)Mhoram Wrote: 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.

For someone who "wasn't there" you see things quite plainly. I liked the idea of "rejuvenating" the faithful, improving catechesis, and sticking to the issues that need addressing. Amen!

- Lisa


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - Benno - 07-24-2009

Well, the answer to the question is that it really doesn't matter too much what we think, when we don't have the power, authority, etc.  :)

But it's always nice to hear sincere opinions.


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - James02 - 07-25-2009

The big problem was the persecution of Fr. Feeney.  The Church had been very successful in winning converts.  If we had stayed militant, the USA would have been a completely Catholic country by 1960.  However our leader caved for the respect of men, instead of fear of our God.


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - lamentabili sane - 07-25-2009

(07-25-2009, 12:54 AM)James02 Wrote: The big problem was the persecution of Fr. Feeney.  The Church had been very successful in winning converts.  If we had stayed militant, the USA would have been a completely Catholic country by 1960.  However our leader caved for the respect of men, instead of fear of our God.

I agree, although I think the real problem was why they persecuted Fr. Feeney. I am trying to expose the error of "Feeneyism" without implicating Fr. Feeney at all. One point which I consider important to establish was that Fr. Feeney was not a "Feeneyite". It was necessary for his liberal enemies, who perfectly realized the great danger to their enterprise posed by one priest (a courageous and famous one, with a prominent position inside the inner bastions). They cleverly found a chink in his armor and, using their power in the media, focused the attention on Fr. Feeney, and away from themselves and their own heresy (which was the liberal explicit denial of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus).

I am not defending all that Fr. Feeney had said or done, only saying that the real issue here is misunderstood by many, if not most.



Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - SCG - 07-25-2009

My understanding was that Fr. Feeney was excommunicated because he failed to appear in Rome after several summons – a direct disobedience to legitimate Church authority. Of course, the summons was related to his strict interpretation of EENS, but that’s not why he was excommunicated per se. It is also my understanding that he was reconciled to the Church before his death. Interesting that he fought what he perceived to be liberalism in the Church even in the 1940s. 

- Lisa 


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - lamentabili sane - 07-25-2009

(07-25-2009, 03:57 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: My understanding was that Fr. Feeney was excommunicated because he failed to appear in Rome after several summons – a direct disobedience to legitimate Church authority. Of course, the summons was related to his strict interpretation of EENS, but that’s not why he was excommunicated per se. It is also my understanding that he was reconciled to the Church before his death. Interesting that he fought what he perceived to be liberalism in the Church even in the 1940s. 

- Lisa 

How do you know this?

Fr. Feeney's position was precisely that he wanted Rome to judge the doctrinal questions he had highlighted - especially his charges of heresy against the teachers at Boston College. The Holy Office could have been charging him with a doctrinal point or points, disobedience to his superiors or his bishop, taking vows in a new religious order without a dispensation, or whatever. The fact is that he didn't know exactly why he was summonned to Rome, and neither do we.

It is also important to point out that the letter from the Holy Office merely clarified the doctrine of EENS. It seems to me that the letter was intended to settle a controversy privately by clarifying the doctrine for both parties, without extending the debate any further. This was a typical display of Roman prudence and caution.


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - SCG - 07-25-2009

(07-25-2009, 04:31 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(07-25-2009, 03:57 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: My understanding was that Fr. Feeney was excommunicated because he failed to appear in Rome after several summons – a direct disobedience to legitimate Church authority. Of course, the summons was related to his strict interpretation of EENS, but that’s not why he was excommunicated per se. It is also my understanding that he was reconciled to the Church before his death. Interesting that he fought what he perceived to be liberalism in the Church even in the 1940s. 

- Lisa 

How do you know this?

I don't know this. Gee, I'm sorry. I guess I should have said he was probably summoned to Rome because of his position on EENS. Maybe the bigger question is WHY Fr. Feeeny never made it to Rome. If he didn't know the reason for the summons, maybe he should have just went to Rome and found out.

- Lisa