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 - 07-27-2009

(07-27-2009, 02:55 PM)Zakhur Wrote:
(07-27-2009, 01:24 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: Look. I’m not disparaging everything about 1950s Catholicism. I grew up in the 50s. I thank God that I was born then. I thank God for my Catholic upbringing, for the wonderful priests and Sisters who taught me my Faith. They did a good job – but that’s not to say there wasn't room for improvement. I am NOT saying we’re in better shape now. But it’s dishonest to paint an idyllic picture of the past, as many trads are wont to do. I think it’s dishonest to view through rosy glasses ANY time in the Church’s history – whether it’s dreaming about medieval schools of mystics or the apostolic days of early Christianity. Every age had its share of shame and glory, persecution and peace. We don’t move forward unless we admit our mistakes (past and present) and stop repeating them. Tradition for the mere sake of tradition and change for the sake of change is wrong. And the only age in history that will truly be our boast will happen after the Second Coming.

Of course, I understand this means nothing to those who believe today’s hierarchy are not legitimate authority – that the modern Church is a false church and that these are the worst times ever. But that's not the discussion I had in mind when I created this thread.   

- Lisa


Lisa,

I have no illusions about the Church's history.  I have studied it too much to yearn for some kind of "better time" in which there were no problems.  If there are people who describe themselves as traditionalists and hold fast to any of the illusions you describe above, they do not hold on to those illusions because of some vague thing called "traditionalism."  They do so because they are uninformed. 

Who said anything about today's ecclesiastical authority being illegitimate?  That's not the point, and those who say so are simply wrong.  The sedevacantist position is dead wrong.

It's also incorrect to assume that today's crisis is not the greatest yet faced by the Church in her history.  It could be, and very well seems to be.  There are signs that show this if you can read them.  Do you not realize the catastrophe that the modern liturgical reform represents?  If you have not read what Cardinal Ratzinger has said about it, then you really need to find the quotes.  Find out what Deitrich von Hildebrand has said about our times.   It is nothing to brush off.  This is not illusion.  These two men represent two of the most incisive mindsof the 20th century.  The modern era represents a horrendous revolt against Christ.  There can be no compromize with it.  Read Warran Carroll on this.  The Church hierarchy has attempted a compromise, and it has been disastrous.

"Archbishop Lefebvre" Wrote:"It appears to us much more certain that the faith taught by the Church over twenty centuries cannot contain error than that there is absolute certainty that the Pope really is the pope. Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, and the invalidity of the election are all potential reasons why a Pope was never really the pope or should cease to be the pope. In such a case, clearly a very exceptional one, the Church would find herself in a situation similar to that which she experiences after the decease of a Sovereign Pontiff. For, in a word, a very serious problem presents itself to the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of the papacy of Paul VI. How is that a Pope, the true successor of Peter, assured of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, could preside over the destruction of the Church, the most profound and extensive in her history, in such a short space of time, something which no heresiarch has ever succeeded in doing? To this question there will one day have to be a reply." - Declaration by Mgr Lefebvre to Figaro, reproduced in Monde et Vie no 264, for 27 August 1976. This was shortly after he was suspended a divinis (in July 1976) for ordaining priests contrary to the order of Paul VI.



Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - SCG - 07-27-2009

(07-27-2009, 02:02 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: Tradition means "to transmit". What is tradition other than the passing on of truth and proper worship. Tradition certainly is for the sake of Tradition.

LS.. I wasn’t speaking of Sacred Tradition with a capitol “T” but tradition with a small “t”. Not every small-t- tradition (or custom) is worth keeping (or losing, for that matter). If we had stuck with the traditions of antiquity, such as communion in the hand, communion under both species, or Mass in the vernacular (and please don’t tell me that ancient Christianity never practiced it – because they did), our churches would look now exactly the way they looked in the days of the apostles. That’s what the liturgical reformers of the 20th century were aiming for. A return to the "traditions" of antiquity.

- Lisa


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - SCG - 07-27-2009

(07-27-2009, 02:55 PM)Zakhur Wrote: It's also incorrect to assume that today's crisis is not the greatest yet faced by the Church in her history.  It could be, and very well seems to be.  There are signs that show this if you can read them.  Do you not realize the catastrophe that the modern liturgical reform represents?  If you have not read what Cardinal Ratzinger has said about it, then you really need to find the quotes.  Find out what Deitrich von Hildebrand has said about our times.   It is nothing to brush off.  This is not illusion.  These two men represent two of the most incisive mindsof the 20th century.  The modern era represents a horrendous revolt against Christ.  There can be no compromize with it.  Read Warran Carroll on this.  The Church hierarchy has attempted a compromise, and it has been disastrous.

I have read these books. I was also a huge fan of Michael Davies. I'm also a fairly good student of Church history. As for today being the "worst of times" - you know what Dickens had to say about that: "They were the best of times and the worst of times" - as everyone interprets his own era.

Actually I think it would have been worse to live during the Great Western Schism. Imagine having three Popes to choose from!

- Lisa


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - Joseph11 - 07-27-2009

I don't agree with Dickens' subjective view of history.  I believe it is possible to make an objective judgment about historical periods after a thorough study.  Also, there is a hierarchy in reality.  Some things that were attacked in one period are inferior to those attacked in our period.  The notion of dogma itself is being attacked in our time.  This has never been done before.  A professor at Christendom College has called Modernism "the first meta-linguistic heresy."  That is good description and reflects just how insidious this heresy is.

I agree totally about living during a time when three men claim to be pope.  For some reason, the present crisis does not lend itself to the sensational as previous crises did.  Perhaps this is due to the metaphysical nature of the attack.  But I have reasons for thinking that the present crisis is about to manifest itself in a very external way that will show <i>more visibly</i> that it is unprecedented in severity.  I hope, through prayer, that this can be averted.


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - SCG - 07-27-2009

(07-27-2009, 04:22 PM)Zakhur Wrote: But I have reasons for thinking that the present crisis is about to manifest itself in a very external way that will show <i>more visibly</i> that it is unprecedented in severity.  I hope, through prayer, that this can be averted.

Interesting. Could you expand on that?


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - lamentabili sane - 07-28-2009

(07-27-2009, 03:45 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(07-27-2009, 02:02 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: Tradition means "to transmit". What is tradition other than the passing on of truth and proper worship. Tradition certainly is for the sake of Tradition.

LS.. I wasn’t speaking of Sacred Tradition with a capitol “T” but tradition with a small “t”. Not every small-t- tradition (or custom) is worth keeping (or losing, for that matter).

Yes, I've heard your "big T, small t" talk before. The problem is that I don't think you understand how the small t changes (either accidently or by the authority of the  Church for some reason).

Big T cannot change, like the Church's teaching on Religious Liberty. Your typical defense of apparent Big T changes is to say they are small t...not explicitly, mind you, but with your general comments about "not confusing Big T with small t". YOU are confusing the two in many cases.

Quote:If we had stuck with the traditions of antiquity, such as communion in the hand, communion under both species, or Mass in the vernacular (and please don’t tell me that ancient Christianity never practiced it – because they did), our churches would look now exactly the way they looked in the days of the apostles.
This is just a straw man.

Quote:That’s what the liturgical reformers of the 20th century were aiming for. A return to the "traditions" of antiquity.
No, they wanted to abandon Tradition. A true REFORMER is a man of Tradition. They were REVOLUTIONARIES.

"Pope Leo XIII, [i Wrote:Apostolicae Curae[/i]"]Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between "the law of believing and the law of praying", under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers.



Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - Joseph11 - 07-28-2009

(07-27-2009, 04:36 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(07-27-2009, 04:22 PM)Zakhur Wrote: But I have reasons for thinking that the present crisis is about to manifest itself in a very external way that will show <i>more visibly</i> that it is unprecedented in severity.  I hope, through prayer, that this can be averted.

Interesting. Could you expand on that?

I will expand on one aspect of that to which I am referring in that statement, for there are all kinds of ways this external manifestation of the present crisis could take place.

Liberal democracies are doomed to collapse from the inside, for they are based on the false premise that government draws its authority to govern from the consent of the governed.  The fact that the premise is false is proved merely from Scripture; Christ told Pontius Pilate that any authority that Pilate had over Him had been given Pilate by God.  Pilate himself, by his next actions, denied this principle.  He asked the crowd to tell him what to do with Jesus.  That was very democratic and liberal of him!  The crowd, as we know, voted against Divine Law.

Someone might object that this does not prove that liberal democracies are doomed.  Take the case of the American Constitution.  The Constitution is the foundation of all law and government in the United States.  The Constitution itself, though, exists because of the "will of the people" as I heard one conservative Supreme Court justice put it.  This is a ridiculous situation because if human law is not founded on Divine Law, human law can eventually, and will inevitably without the presence of sanctifying grace in legislators, contradict Divine Law.  We see this happening today in every liberal democracy on earth.

One of the Church's tasks in the modern era has been to contradict the false doctrines of liberal philosophy (btw:  when I say "liberal" I am talking about classical liberal philosophy as expressed by men like John Locke or Thomas Jefferson, not today's popular liberalism; although the latter is a lesser intellectual child of the former and relies on the former for its theoretical foundation).  The popes before Vatican II performed mostly admirably in this regard.  The council, and the posture which the Church hierarchy now presents to these errors, is a sad compromise.

This situation will, perhaps soon, lead to the almost worldwide persecution of Christianity.  The world, the secular, is opposed, in its essence, to Christ, to God.  Christ always said so.


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - SCG - 07-28-2009

Interesting thoughts Zakhur. Thanks for elaborating. I'll get back to you later with some thoughts on that.

LS.... You are misreading me because I'm more on your side than against you.. yet you continue to challenge me. I know Sacred Tradition (big T) can never change. And once again you missed the irony in my last statement-  - the similarities I made between traditionalists and progressives who both claim to preserve the traditions of antiquity. You accuse me of setting up straw men and telling me how confused I am - how I will view every tradition as a small "t". I could turn it around and say you will view every tradition as a big "T". Maybe you should tell us what constitutes a "small t." This should be interesting.

- Lisa


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - lamentabili sane - 07-28-2009

(07-28-2009, 02:22 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: LS.... You are misreading me because I'm more on your side than against you.. yet you continue to challenge me.
No, I do understand that you are largely on "my side". What I am challenging is some of what you say.

Quote:I know Sacred Tradition (big T) can never change.
Yes, I'm aware of that as well.

Quote:And once again you missed the irony in my last statement-  - the similarities I made between traditionalists and progressives who both claim to preserve the traditions of antiquity.
I don't see any irony. Those who wish to preserve the traditions of yesterday (literally) are not remotely comparable to those who wish to bring back traditions from 1800 years ago. The latter have been condemned. That's why I see no irony. :)

Quote:You accuse me of setting up straw men and telling me how confused I am - how I will view every tradition as a small "t". I could turn it around and say you will view every tradition as a big "T". Maybe you should tell us what constitutes a "small t." This should be interesting.

You did set up a straw man and there are places where I believe you are confused. I ddin't say that you view EVERY tradition as a small "t", only that you resort to this line of defense quite often.

The rules for the reception of Holy Communion are a small "t" (the practical judgment portion). These rules were changed by Pope Pius X. There were valid arguments against this modification of the law. The rules for the eucharistic fast were modified by Pope Pius XII. There were valid arguments against this as well. These types of things can be changed and are changed from time to time. There are also accidental changes that occur over time.

Sweeping changes to many, many longstanding traditions (small "t") seems impossible to justify.

"Summa Theologica" Wrote:From the Summa:

Article 2. Whether human law should always be changed, whenever something better occurs?

Objection 1. It would seem that human law should be changed, whenever something better occurs. Because human laws are devised by human reason, like other arts. But in the other arts, the tenets of former times give place to others, if something better occurs. Therefore the same should apply to human laws.

Objection 2. Further, by taking note of the past we can provide for the future. Now unless human laws had been changed when it was found possible to improve them, considerable inconvenience would have ensued; because the laws of old were crude in many points. Therefore it seems that laws should be changed, whenever anything better occurs to be enacted.

Objection 3. Further, human laws are enacted about single acts of man. But we cannot acquire perfect knowledge in singular matters, except by experience, which "requires time," as stated in Ethic. ii. Therefore it seems that as time goes on it is possible for something better to occur for legislation.

On the contrary, It is stated in the Decretals (Dist. xii, 5): "It is absurd, and a detestable shame, that we should suffer those traditions to be changed which we have received from the fathers of old."

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), human law is rightly changed, in so far as such change is conducive to the common weal. But, to a certain extent, the mere change of law is of itself prejudicial to the common good: because custom avails much for the observance of laws, seeing that what is done contrary to general custom, even in slight matters, is looked upon as grave. Consequently, when a law is changed, the binding power of the law is diminished, in so far as custom is abolished. Wherefore human law should never be changed, unless, in some way or other, the common weal be compensated according to the extent of the harm done in this respect. Such compensation may arise either from some very great and every evident benefit conferred by the new enactment; or from the extreme urgency of the case, due to the fact that either the existing law is clearly unjust, or its observance extremely harmful. Wherefore the jurist says [Pandect. Justin. lib. i, ff., tit. 4, De Constit. Princip.] that "in establishing new laws, there should be evidence of the benefit to be derived, before departing from a law which has long been considered just."

Reply to Objection 1. Rules of art derive their force from reason alone: and therefore whenever something better occurs, the rule followed hitherto should be changed. But "laws derive very great force from custom," as the Philosopher states (Polit. ii, 5): consequently they should not be quickly changed.

Reply to Objection 2. This argument proves that laws ought to be changed: not in view of any improvement, but for the sake of a great benefit or in a case of great urgency, as stated above. This answer applies also to the Third Objection.







Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - Joseph11 - 07-28-2009

(07-27-2009, 02:59 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(07-27-2009, 02:55 PM)Zakhur Wrote: Who said anything about today's ecclesiastical authority being illegitimate?  That's not the point, and those who say so are simply wrong.  The sedevacantist position is dead wrong.

"Archbishop Lefebvre" Wrote:"It appears to us much more certain that the faith taught by the Church over twenty centuries cannot contain error than that there is absolute certainty that the Pope really is the pope. Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, and the invalidity of the election are all potential reasons why a Pope was never really the pope or should cease to be the pope. In such a case, clearly a very exceptional one, the Church would find herself in a situation similar to that which she experiences after the decease of a Sovereign Pontiff. For, in a word, a very serious problem presents itself to the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of the papacy of Paul VI. How is that a Pope, the true successor of Peter, assured of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, could preside over the destruction of the Church, the most profound and extensive in her history, in such a short space of time, something which no heresiarch has ever succeeded in doing? To this question there will one day have to be a reply." - Declaration by Mgr Lefebvre to Figaro, reproduced in Monde et Vie no 264, for 27 August 1976. This was shortly after he was suspended a divinis (in July 1976) for ordaining priests contrary to the order of Paul VI.

lamentabili,

Your point is well taken.  However, I cannot forget Liberius.  I cannot forget Alexander IV.  The latter brought such infamy to the hierarchy that I wonder if he did not in some way contribute to the Protestant Reformation.  I do not in any way think that what those two popes did was as damaging to the Faith on Earth as what Paul VI did.  They merely, with Peter's denial of Christ, open the way for me to begin to understand how a pope could do what Paul VI did.

If Paul VI's cause for canonization is ever brought forth, we will then get our answer.  If not sooner.