Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you
#27
(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

Haha! Ok, Lisa. Either I'm on a completely different page or I have no idea what you're trying to say. Are you speaking about personal sins? I thought this was about the execution of the Church's teaching authority, whether binding or non-binding, by the Church's hierarchy. Whether or not the council was binding (mandatory) on the faithful, the Church has nevertheless established the [de]formation (I'm not trying to be funny here, I just don't think it was a reformation because nothing needed to be reformed - see my answer to your question below) of the liturgy and ambiguous dogmatic proclamations as a means by which souls may be saved. This was more than just "personal sins" of men abusing their authority; this is about the sins of men abusing the Magisterium and destroying the first mark of the Church by which it may be known: Unity (of worship, of belief, of prayer, of teaching, and of Faith.).  

But to answer your second question in your OP:

If the "faithful" (in quotes because they really wouldn't be faithful) are discontented with the liturgy, then the solution is to change the "faithful" not the face of Christ's Spouse. As you said in a recent post on this thread, a restoration could be in order, but it would have to restore, not invent.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - by INPEFESS - 07-23-2009, 09:17 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)