Why the Unwillingness to Change?
#1
I'm reviving this old thread http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg22984238 and turning the question around.

Why is what we here on FE would call the New Church so unwilling to reconsider any of the  :puke: reforms? :puke:

What has the current Church hierarchy, or the individual priests, or the NO apologists, or whoever got invested in the post-conciliar reforms that causes a rabid reaction when anything about the :puke: New Springtime :puke: is questioned?

Reply
#2
Many will disagree with this view but in my opinion the unwillingness does not come from the view that the TLM is bad or difficult or that somehow the change will mean the erosion of Vatican II but rather it comes from learning from history.

The V II reforms were not handled well, if anything they were rushed there was this naive enthusiasm (I do not why either) to get the stuff done and so many people that went to Mass discovered that literally over night the Mass had been hijacked by something they did not recognize. Many left both religious and lay people.

The fear is that the same will happen when pressing the re-boot button that many will come and see something that they do not recognize the modernist will claim some sort of schism and the Church will break in two what I think the Curia sees as unnecessary chaos. This is a very slow and methodical reform ones that will be so subtle nobody will notice when all of sudden you are learning Latin and the Priest is not facing you.

I do not share this view of course I think that the modernist should be made to purify them selves in the ever eternal Mass of ages and we might even save some souls that way but I think as men do not as God does.
Reply
#3
Too many in the Church, including our present Pontiff, are too heavily invested in Vatican II and cannot possibly look at it objectively.  I'm sorry, but not every Council in Church history was a success.  Until we start to get bishops and a Pope that had nothing to do with the Council we won't get any real, substantial "reform."  It has to be propped up because too many people's ecclesiology, warped or otherwise, is attached to its success.
Reply
#4
In my opinion the Enemy wanted to disrupt the unity of the Church, and the Enemy succeeded. He also is using the Vatican II council to achieve his goals, intentionally misinterpreting whatever could be misinterpreted.

Should the Catholics listen to Vatican II, e.g. to the Inter Mirifica decree and recapture the media, excluding the Enemy and his deception from the media, we could see a Catholic revival.

As for the change, there is change inside the traditional world too. Considering only the Liturgy,  the standard Mass in the traditional times was the low Mass, without active participation of the faithful, the standard traditional Mass is the High, both representing significant change to the original  Mass today. The Breviarium for more than 1500 years was the so called Tridentine version, and this is replaced either by the St Pius X or by the 1960 Breviary. As for the doctrine the center of the traditional doctrine was the 'living Magisterium, now vehemently denied by many traditionalist, claiming that tehy are the only true interpreters of the revelation.

Naturally the Enemy want to make believe that the change is rejected, the randomly picked frozen tradition is the only truth, and not the disunity is favored even among the traditional groups. 
Reply
#5
(02-06-2010, 03:49 PM)DrBombay Wrote: Too many in the Church, including our present Pontiff, are too heavily invested in Vatican II and cannot possibly look at it objectively.  I'm sorry, but not every Council in Church history was a success.  Until we start to get bishops and a Pope that had nothing to do with the Council we won't get any real, substantial "reform."  It has to be propped up because too many people's ecclesiology, warped or otherwise, is attached to its success.
The good doctor strikes again! You've hit the nail square on the head, I agree 100%
Reply
#6
(02-06-2010, 09:01 PM)RalphKramden Wrote:
(02-06-2010, 03:49 PM)DrBombay Wrote: Too many in the Church, including our present Pontiff, are too heavily invested in Vatican II and cannot possibly look at it objectively.  I'm sorry, but not every Council in Church history was a success.  Until we start to get bishops and a Pope that had nothing to do with the Council we won't get any real, substantial "reform."  It has to be propped up because too many people's ecclesiology, warped or otherwise, is attached to its success.
The good doctor strikes again! You've hit the nail square on the head, I agree 100%

Ditto not until we get a Pope who is currently in his late twenties- early thirties will there be any change. The Pope as nice as he is is just trying to polish a turd with his smells and bells reform of reform garbage. The whole idea of reforming a defective reform is ridiculous not until someone who is young now gets into the chair of Peter will there be a change. Its all about making VII acceptable they think if they just throw enough manure on top of the heap something beautiful will grow but you need good soil to start with.
Reply
#7
I believe the answer to the question is, in a word, pride, ergo a lack of humility.

For me, a "NO convert," there was a turning point, which involved repentance through humility.  I came to the realization that I was wrong and needed to change, i.e. repent.

In our secular humanist society, that's not a popular notion.  Most of the NO Catholics (and I'm sure even some "trads") have gotten wrapped up in error they refuse to acknowledge as such:  invalid weddings, divorce, contraception, false ecumenism, etc..  Since misery, invariably, loves company, they enable and console each other (i.e. tickle each other's ears) in order to feel justified in their errors.  Sadly, they don't have to look too far to find priests, bishops and cardinals who will tickle their ears as well.

This hit home for me today.  My sister announced months ago that she is getting remarried, after an annulment, outside the Church.  I told her when she made the announcement that I would not be able to attend.  She has continued to skirt the issue since then so I took it up with her today while she was with my mother and other sister, offering her a CD explaining the Church's position.

She has spoken to a NO priest that has told her that, 'God does not judge,' which she uses as comfort and defense.  She continued on to tell me that it does not say in the Bible that she has to get married in the Church and then goes on to throw in my face the times in the past that I did not live my life in accordance with the teachings of the Church.  She, with the support of the priest she consulted, accuses me of the greater wrong for not attending her wedding. 

If that were not enough, my mother defends her saying that the Church never taught this to her either.  So far, they are both refusing to listen to the CD.  My mother did say she wants to talk to my chaplain who is telling me these things, so maybe there is cause for some hope, but her friends are just as bad because they and their children have drifted from the Church's teaching and refuse to acknowledge any error. 

I don't intend to hijack this thread with discussion of this personal story but use it to illustrate my premise.
Reply
#8
(02-06-2010, 09:09 PM)Baskerville Wrote:
(02-06-2010, 09:01 PM)RalphKramden Wrote:
(02-06-2010, 03:49 PM)DrBombay Wrote: Too many in the Church, including our present Pontiff, are too heavily invested in Vatican II and cannot possibly look at it objectively.  I'm sorry, but not every Council in Church history was a success.  Until we start to get bishops and a Pope that had nothing to do with the Council we won't get any real, substantial "reform."  It has to be propped up because too many people's ecclesiology, warped or otherwise, is attached to its success.
The good doctor strikes again! You've hit the nail square on the head, I agree 100%

Ditto not until we get a Pope who is currently in his late twenties- early thirties will there be any change. The Pope as nice as he is is just trying to polish a turd with his smells and bells reform of reform garbage. The whole idea of reforming a defective reform is ridiculous not until someone who is young now gets into the chair of Peter will there be a change. Its all about making VII acceptable they think if they just throw enough manure on top of the heap something beautiful will grow but you need good soil to start with.

I'm afraid this might be so and I may not live to see it. However, there is a slim chance (Cardinal Ottavani et al) that we'll have that sooner. I can see going slowly so as not cause more disunity within the Church as would be the case with an immediate change. Our present Pope has written some things on this "reform of a defective form" that don't look promising tho'. I also feel that there are too many with investment in VII right now to affect a change.
Reply
#9
I don't think the council it self is the problem I think that the post conciliar documents, many of them are flawed because they derive from bad misunderstanding or in some cases simple disobedience to the council.

That being said I do think the council it self is flawed because of the many ambiguous points. However these flaws are only relevant today because as B16 has pointed out they were not seen in light of Tradition but rather as rupture. 
Reply
#10
(02-06-2010, 09:09 PM)Baskerville Wrote: Ditto not until we get a Pope who is currently in his late twenties- early thirties will there be any change. The Pope as nice as he is is just trying to polish a turd with his smells and bells reform of reform garbage. The whole idea of reforming a defective reform is ridiculous not until someone who is young now gets into the chair of Peter will there be a change. Its all about making VII acceptable they think if they just throw enough manure on top of the heap something beautiful will grow but you need good soil to start with.

Although I agree that there are a lot of theological ambiguities in the Council documents that will have to be cleared up by a later pope I tend to think that the reform of the reform isn't "polishing a turd". If priests and bishops had followed the documents of Vatican II rather than the "spirit of Vatican II" then, on a parish level atleast, the Church would be much better off.

The two examples in my mind are The Constitution on the Liturgy and catechesis tradendae (not actually from the Council, but draws heavily on V2). The first states that gregorian chant should be given pride of place in the Mass and that the faithful should pray atleast some of the prayers of the ordinary in Latin. Catechesis tradendae stresses the importance of religious instruction that is comprehensive and doesn't water down the faith.

If just these two documents were adhered to then we wouldn't have had clowns in the Mass or colouring in pictures of Noah's Ark at CCD.

The answer is making sure future priests understand and obey Vatican II and the post-concilliar magisterium, not throwing it out.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)