Why Vatican II avoided Communism
#31
(10-05-2012, 09:34 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-05-2012, 10:53 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: I think his vision of ecumenism was focused on the Orthodox primarily. He worked in Bulgaria and Greece and I think he had a strong affection for them. Perhaps he realized they are the closest to us, and that reunion was much more realistic a venture with them.
And the result of the council was only to scare off the Orthodox even more, as Card. Ottaviani's mentioned in §VII: The Alienation of the Orthodox in his "Ottaviani Intervention"…

Sacred off?

[Image: Athenagoras1Paul6.jpg]

[Image: d3de7fe047de9900b2b8354a0e03141d.jpg]

[Image: BenedictBartholomew.jpg]
Reply
#32

What do I know? But I would suggest that a reason Communism was not dealt with would be the large segment of the Church being behind the Iron Curtain at that time. Especially Catholic Poland. So the case can be made that it was to protect the Church from being crushed by the Communists in this new era.

Sad thing is that Americanism and the Americanist Heresy found fruit in the Council for the rest of the Church of what had been going on here since the liberal Catholics in Maryland wanted to get along with the Protestants. In other words, the rest of the Church was basically 150 years behind. And America became the place in which the Church placed all Her eggs.

Does anyone know if a political system or ideology was ever condemned or highlighted in a Council? And if not, is it possible that complaining about it is 1)  asking the Church to comment on things beyond its scope, and 2) praising Democracy and the American way in areas in which it does not deserve to receive praise?

I seem to remember something about "rendering to Caesar".

Reply
#33
(10-06-2012, 10:49 AM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(10-05-2012, 09:34 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-05-2012, 10:53 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: I think his vision of ecumenism was focused on the Orthodox primarily. He worked in Bulgaria and Greece and I think he had a strong affection for them. Perhaps he realized they are the closest to us, and that reunion was much more realistic a venture with them.
And the result of the council was only to scare off the Orthodox even more, as Card. Ottaviani's mentioned in §VII: The Alienation of the Orthodox in his "Ottaviani Intervention"…

Sacred off?
What I mean by "to scare off" is "to prevent from converting."
Reply
#34
(10-06-2012, 11:04 AM)Adam Wayne Wrote: Does anyone know if a political system or ideology was ever condemned or highlighted in a Council? And if not, is it possible that complaining about it is 1)  asking the Church to comment on things beyond its scope, and 2) praising Democracy and the American way in areas in which it does not deserve to receive praise?

I seem to remember something about "rendering to Caesar".
Church has the God-given authority to judge anything pertaining to the faith or morals. Communism is linked with atheism; therefore, the Church has a right to condemn it. In fact, previous papal documents have, e.g., On atheistic communism (Divini Redemptoris) by Pope Pius XI.
Reply
#35
(10-06-2012, 02:12 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-06-2012, 10:49 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: Sacred off?
What I mean by "to scare off" is "to prevent from converting."

I find that hard to believe on a wide scale. It isn't like the New Mass is practiced in Eastern churches. Granted there may be some changes, but they tend toward the Orthodox, for instance, in the case of Filioque. We all know authority is the problem with the Orthodox, and not something which is quite distant from them, which is the state of Masses in the Western churches.
Reply
#36
(10-06-2012, 02:35 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(10-06-2012, 02:12 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-06-2012, 10:49 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: Sacred off?
What I mean by "to scare off" is "to prevent from converting."

I find that hard to believe on a wide scale. It isn't like the New Mass is practiced in Eastern churches.
Exactly. The New Mass scares both the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics off. I know many Roman Catholics fed up with the Novus Ordo who now attend Eastern Catholic rite churches.
(10-06-2012, 02:35 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: Granted there may be some changes, but they tend toward the Orthodox, for instance, in the case of Filioque.
Who‽
(10-06-2012, 02:35 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: We all know authority is the problem with the Orthodox, and not something which is quite distant from them, which is the state of Masses in the Western churches.
They see that state as a fruit of the corrupt authority.
Reply
#37
And I wonder how many Roman Catholics fell into schism by joinining Orthodox communion because of the liturgical nightmare of the Latin Rite.
Reply
#38
(10-06-2012, 05:04 PM)TS Aquinas Wrote: And I wonder how many Roman Catholics fell into schism by joinining Orthodox communion because of the liturgical nightmare of the Latin Rite.

Who knows? But I would bet it is a far lesser number than those who became apostates by sleeping in on Sunday. Of course of those, the far majority simply left because the Faith was watered down to the point that they simply did not believe it anymore. A far lesser number stay home with what they think is a good or knowledgeable reason.

Or those who still go to Holy Communion, but skip the Confessional. They are the ones, who unfortunately make the Protestant-Like service truly Protestant for themselves.

Oh well, interesting to note that the austerity and tragedy that hit these people in the post-War Communist Bloc actually had a strong Church and a strong Faith. So maybe John XXIII was right. On the flip side, the cushy West lost it to hedonism and comfort.

So maybe we should be asking why John XXIII did not criticize Americanism. Like Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, and Pius XI did.

But that would appear to be an unpopular position.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)