Blaming Vatican II
#11
Quote: I have a question for all those who blame the Council for the bad shape of the Church: How do they expect a renewal?

I don't blame Vatican II as the root cause for the bad shape of the Church.  By the way, at least you are admitting that the Church is in bad shape.

Anyhow, Vatican II was approved by the pre-Vatican II Church, so obviously there were problems before Vat. II.  Fr. Feeney found that out.  Heck,  some great Popes including a recent saint knew it.

A few points:
1.  Vatican II did cause a lot of damage since it is ambiguous.  In the future, the Church will ignore it more and more.  Pope Benedict is already "reinterpreting" it according to Tradition.  When you "reinterpret" it, you are left with what?  Wasted ink?  Why was it even held? A "reinterpreted" Vatican II ends up saying nothing new.  It will be ignored since it is so lengthy anyway.

2.  Vatican II was a non-binding, pastoral, fallible (capable of error) council.  The Church has never known a non-binding, pastoral, fallible council.  The Pope has a lot of leeway to get rid of it.

3.  Until the Pope consecrates Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart with all of the bishops of the world to convert that poor country, we will not have any large victories, let alone THE victory.

Now, with that framework, let me answer your direct question.  How do I expect a renewal?  First, we don't need a renewal.  Consider my children.  They have no idea, really, about the "bad shape" of the Church.  They were raised Traditionalists, and it is really all they know.  You go to Church, you receive the sacraments.  Father is always some masculine, good role model type man who gives stern sermons.  Friends are Traditionalists and they will in all likelihood marry Traditionalists, unless I have the privilege of having a priest for a son.  Oh yeah, the priests.  The seminaries are full.  By the way, Clear Creek Monastery is also reaching capacity.  This is in the USA.

In France (I am sophmoric here) I understand that basically the only Catholics (practicing ones) are Traditionalists.

So the renewal will come by the growth of Traditionalist parishes.  A big improvement would come if the Novus Ordo was declared a separate rite (the vulgar rite).  Then it would die off from contraception and AIDS related deaths.

The answer to your question?  Tradition.  It works.  It's working.  It will take back the Church.  Vatican II?  Ignore it.

Reply
#12
(06-30-2009, 08:43 PM)Credo Wrote: In its place a greater understanding of the serious weakness which existed in the Church in the 1920s, 30s, 40s, etc will emerge.

What were those weaknesses?  I'm not being facetious here; I'd really like to know.  Obviously we don't want to replace today's mistakes with the mistakes of the past.  Whenever someone says there were real problems in the Church that needed to be addressed, and they're asked for specifics, they generally respond with some vague stuff about clericalism and people in the pews not really knowing what was going on.  Surely the needs were more specific than that if they deserved a Council.

The impression I get from reading some of the statements from the opening of the Council is that it wasn't created to deal with problems in the Church, but to look for ways to spread the Gospel better and more widely.  "Things are going pretty good right now, but we could perform our function better, so let's get together and brainstorm some new ideas."  That's very different from the Councils that had the attitude, "There's a heresy or corruption that's threatening to destroy the Church, so we'd better lay down some law."

One thing I find interesting about Vatican II and the changes that followed it is how proactive they were.  I've always heard the claim that the Church had to change to keep up with the times, but it looks to me like the Church didn't wait around for the times to change.  For example, the drop in religious vocations came after the rules were relaxed on things like wearing the habit and saying the Office.  The rules weren't changed because vocations dropped; vocations were higher than ever.  They were changed....just because, it seems.  It's also pretty clear from the homosexuality scandals that the seminaries became gay-friendly well before most of society did.

Reply
#13
>>I have a question for all those who blame the Council for the bad shape of the Church: How do they expect a renewal?

In the last 2000 years always a Council brought the renewal:
<<<


Well, all of the other Councils were called to condemn errors and define doctrine. That is not renewal, it is correction and restoration to sound doctrine and praxis. Vatican II introduced both teaching and practices which the Church had condemned in earlier councils, Papal pronouncements, and Magisterial teaching. 
Most who did not leave the Church adopted these abberations.  The un-Catholic has become the norm. Does one need to look further to find the agent of dissolution of Catholicism?

The Council was a perfect and serviceable vehicle for the enemies of the Holy Faith. It's proposed "pastoral" nature was the entry by which Satan's operatives gained the power to undermine Christ's Holy doctrine, and lead millions of souls to perdition.

JMJ    JPM

Reply
#14
Blaming Vatican II is losing faith in the Spirit of Christ. If Vatican II is pastoral to the people of God it is because we need to hear the Church's prophetic voice. The Church in the 20Th Century did not need to defend against heresy as much as to clearly reaffirm its own teachings. The Church was no more Christendom, a political entity.The body of truths and the language it used to spread the Gospel were in need of updating to the thoughts of modernity to be understood. The people of God was no more Western but worldwide, cross-cultural and pluralistic. The Liturgical language had to be vernacular to be consonant with indigenous believers. This was the new paradigm and character which the Church found itself facing. A renewal was needed even as the Church spoke prophetically of the encroaching dangers. Consequently, Vatican II warned of the evil of Relativism, the scourge of abortion and consumerism, the demeaning of the human person, the abyss of a culture of death, and to recall the people of God to the Christ-centered life and the original Good News. At the same it extended the Christian message to all people of goodwill in a voice they understood, discarding its 19Th Century triumphalist and fortress mentality. The Church remains a light to all nations. How is it nontraditional?
Reply
#15
(07-01-2009, 01:03 AM)iggyting Wrote: The Church in the 20Th Century did not need to defend against heresy as much as to clearly reaffirm its own teachings.

And, of course, that's the exact opposite of what the Council actually did. In reality, it undermined and/or contradicted much of the Traditional Magisterium.
Reply
#16
"It's also pretty clear from the homosexuality scandals that the seminaries became gay-friendly well before most of society did."

Youch, I've never heard that one before. But I've thought along similar lines often...

This'll be obvious to most people here I guess, but for what it's worth I think that the "new springtime" etc gave a window of opportunity for every priest or nun who had "issues" (be it homo stuff or whatever) to justify their sinful tendencies, be more "open", find like-minded others and band together to push for literally perverse "new" agendas, usually justified (by them) by the theological/ pastoral shifts in focus that characterised V2 documents. That includes all kind of perverse stuff - from sex to theology to education, whatever. And the "old guard" must have seen it all happening - sometimes dramatically but mostly incrementally - and just capitulated or foussed on the positives. You could say the same about lay people, but they probably wouldn't have "broken out" the way they did if their priests and nuns hadn't set the example. Even today, the average nominal catholic tends to seek out a parish priest that authorizes their ideas/ wishes about what is required of them as catholics.

Basically, the landmark of V2 seemed to be used as a justification - a "making it official" for many who didn't want to be real Catholics, beginning with the religious and spreading to the laity. It was bound to happen that the numbers of religious dropped, because the whole purpose and importance of the vocation seemed to change, and the laity, banding in little groups behind either perverse religious or ex-religious, largely took over the visible Church.

The only way to solve it seems to be good seminaries/ convents/ monasteries, because it seems integral even to the most new-age catholics to look to an official "authority". There still seems to be a notion that if someone apparently gave up worldly things to live their lives for God, then they can be "trusted" or at least pointed to for justification.

That's why all the dodgy priests, bishops, nuns etc have a lot to answer for these days. I was going to add an angry emoticon thing to that, but I'll change it to a more hopeful and charitable  :pray2:
Reply
#17
(06-30-2009, 07:54 PM)Rosarium Wrote: Vatican II is rather unique as a council, so it is hard to compare it to the past.

Vatican II was not started for the same reasons as the councils which sought to resolve issues. In fact, it is hard to say why VII was started at all.

There were serious issues, related to the nature of Revelation, role of Liturgy, functions of the Church. papal encylicals starting with Leo XIII Rerum Novarum, followed by St Pius X liturgical reform and the Divino Afflante Spiritu somewhat redefining the idea of revelation gave some directions to the modern world; it was necessary to approve or reject them by the universal Church.

Try to read the documents with positive attitude. Start with the Dignitatis Humanae: The document explicitly give you rights to worship God in traditional way:

Quote:2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

Like the other ecumenical councils, Vatican II expressed the opinion of the collegium of the bishops, to which Jesus Christ gave the power to bind and loose. This council mostly loosed things, but gave it under the mandate of our Savior. 

We all need humility and search what God wanted, not reject the decision of all the bishops based on what we like.

laszlo


Reply
#18
(06-30-2009, 08:43 PM)Credo Wrote: You are going to see a number of much needed tweaks in traditionalist arguments in the next couple of decades. With Summorum Pontificum and the general conservative shift in Latin Christianity, one will start seeing some of the more hostile, myopic views of traditional Catholics evaporate. In its place a greater understanding of the serious weakness which existed in the Church in the 1920s, 30s, 40s, etc will emerge. In short, one will start to see more perspective in the traditionalist camp. Even within the last five years weak traditionalist arguments stemming from documents like Quo Primum, for instance, have gone by the wayside, having been replaced with tighter points critiquing the philosophical errors of elements of Vatican II.

There are about 2000 traditionalist priest, who can serve 5 million out of the over thousand million Catholics. SSPX ordained in this year twentysomething new priests, which is safe supplement for the their 500 priests, but not significant grow. (You can caount average 30 years service for a priest, because some die early and some leave the service)

What probably will happen in the future:

- The SSPX will be divided to those who (hopefully under Bishop Fellay) fully reconcile with Rome, get personal prelature with some union with the FSSP and Innstitute of Christ, and will mean a basis for the diocesan tradition oriented priest, to be incardinated, if a new Pope allows the bishops to control the liturgy fully.again.  - and to some who like the SSPV and teh others try to live independently.

- the majority of the faithful will be served by the dioceses which also hopefully will allow married priest to provide succession like for the Eastern Catholics, they will be more liberalized and shrank.

- the time will come when the shrinking of the Church and the serious decline of the Western Civilization will bring the understanding that unity is needed, and and that point a new Council will gave the opportunity tho those who belive that the Church, the Collegium of the Bishops has power will start the renewal.

I did not get personal revelation from God, but this is the optimistic future. You can destroy it destroying the power of the Councils.

laszlo
Reply
#19
(06-30-2009, 09:56 PM)Mhoram Wrote:
(06-30-2009, 08:43 PM)Credo Wrote: In its place a greater understanding of the serious weakness which existed in the Church in the 1920s, 30s, 40s, etc will emerge.

What were those weaknesses?  I'm not being facetious here; I'd really like to know. 

In the US loosing the right of the families to the free education of their children

Quote:5. The family, since it is a society in its own original right, has the right freely to live its own domestic religious life under the guidance of parents. Parents, moreover, have the right to determine, in accordance with their own religious beliefs, the kind of religious education that their children are to receive. Government, in consequence, must acknowledge the right of parents to make a genuinely free choice of schools and of other means of education, and the use of this freedom of choice is not to be made a reason for imposing unjust burdens on parents, whether directly or indirectly. Besides, the right of parents are violated, if their children are forced to attend lessons or instructions which are not in agreement with their religious beliefs, or if a single system of education, from which all religious formation is excluded, is imposed upon all.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_counc...ae_en.html

In Central Europe the rule of the Communis, to which they were sold during WWII.

In Western Europe the growing power of the liberalis/modernism, which ultimately took over the teh Council

In South America the increasing indifference, and leaning toward the Marxist ideas.
Reply
#20
(07-01-2009, 03:31 AM)Benno Wrote: "It's also pretty clear from the homosexuality scandals that the seminaries became gay-friendly well before most of society did."
Youch, I've never heard that one before. But I've thought along similar lines often...

This was somewhat the conclusion of the John Jay report
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/

but true only to America. In Europe the homosexuality was decriminalized in the early fifties, but despite that the policy of Seminaries at least in Central Europe was still homophobe.

The American case makes me think that may be the surge of the ordinations in the sixties was produced by agents of the liberalism. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)