Poll: The Problems in the Church Today are Due Mainly to: (Please read OP for details)
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
66
0%
0 0%
13
0%
0 0%
1
0%
0 0%
3
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Crisis: Where Does the Blame Lie?
#31
I'm not sure how to vote. The options are not complete and exclusive so I can't reallly pick one.

Definitely this crisis is worse than any other.

Definitely the Vatican II documents are problematic, though I think primarily through obfuscation and ambiguity.

But where did Vatican II come from? The problems stem far, far back. If there were no Vatican II, that does not mean that the 4-hymn Low Mass pray/pay/obey Jansenist-infested repressed Irish Catholic culture would not have exploded into pedophilia and liberalism anyway in the context of the 60s and everything else that happened in the secular world.

Also I disagree with the thesis in the poll that equates V2 with the NOM. The NOM is far, far worse than what V2 would naturally suggest. The architects of the NOM deliberately used the ambiguity of V2 (which they influenced also) to make the worse mess possible of things, yes. So they are related, but not the same thing.
Reply
#32
I voted "Yes, Vatican II is mostly to blame for problems in the Church today" in Fr. Z's poll, but this one is more complex. Option 1 emphasizes "the documents," yet it is supposed to include the Novus Ordo Missae and liturgical abuse - which those who believe the Council was misinterpreted - Option 2 - will argue were not caused by the Council itself.

As I see it, given the profundity of the crisis, to believe that the documents themselves are to blame for it is to ascribe magical properties to ink on paper. Had the Church been healthy at the time of the Council, the crisis would not have had the depth and reach it has had.

The Second Vatican Council was an event but also a period that started some time before and ended (or will end) some time after. I don't think any of us will live to have the hindsight to determine the start and end dates of the period, let alone unravel the factors that had the most influence on the crisis; though it seems safe to say that the Council itself (which is more than the documents it produced) was at the least a catalyst. That said, this discussion at this moment in time is not fruitless; far from it, I think it's necessary.

I found myself agreeing with these statements:
(10-12-2012, 11:22 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: I vote for the worst option of all: all of the above. To modify C, the problems in the Church today are worse, yes. But still quite similar to problems going back to the 19th century, if not the Reformation.
(10-13-2012, 01:47 AM)cgraye Wrote: the blame lies with things that happened long before any of these options.
(10-13-2012, 10:09 AM)Old Salt Wrote: the dam broke in 1962-1965.

Option 1 didn't quite capture this, so I voted for "Other".

PS. newyorkcatholic posted while I was writing. What he said.
Reply
#33
Dylan, I now think you should have made the poll "are the Vatican II documents per se problematic or is their interpretation/spirit/etc. to blame?"

When one brings up a crisis too many answers can vary.
Reply
#34
All the documents have some form of error, but Gaudiem et Spes seems to nail it:

".....The council brings to mankind light kindled from the Gospel, and puts at its disposal those saving resources which the Church herself, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, receives from her Founder. For the human person deserves to be preserved; human society deserves to be renewed. Hence the focal point of our total presentation will be man himself, whole and entire, body and soul, heart and conscience, mind and will.

Therefore, this sacred synod, proclaiming the noble destiny of man and championing the Godlike seed which has been sown in him, offers to mankind the honest assistance of the Church in fostering that brotherhood of all men which corresponds to this destiny of theirs. Inspired by no earthly ambition, the Church seeks but a solitary goal: to carry forward the work of Christ under the lead of the befriending Spirit. And Christ entered this world to give witness to the truth, to rescue and not to sit in judgment, to serve and not to be served...."


Reply
#35
(10-13-2012, 12:58 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: I just don't like how you seem to take on the "mommy" role that you implied I tried to test.

Well I do have children your age, so that may unconsciously influence how I talk to you.  However, all that I am aware of is that I am irritated by people who should know better calling me a neocath.  It seems to me that I am taking on an "annoyed person" role.
Reply
#36
I picked choice one. The VII documents are like a bag of heretical potato chips you cant  pick just one. I think these three were the most heretical and caused the most damage to the Church.Dignatatus Humanae Nostra Aetate Gaudium et Spes( i know i didn't spell those right) These documents at the very least are masonic and satanically inspired.
Reply
#37
(10-13-2012, 03:32 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(10-13-2012, 12:58 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: I just don't like how you seem to take on the "mommy" role that you implied I tried to test.

Well I do have children your age, so that may unconsciously influence how I talk to you.  However, all that I am aware of is that I am irritated by people who should know better calling me a neocath.  It seems to me that I am taking on an "annoyed person" role.

I don't think I ever called you a neo cath. I believe you are one (neo trad), but don't think you are a heretic or schismatic. Just that you are gravely mistaken, as I once was.
Reply
#38
Doesn't the term "neocatholic" imply that someone isn't a real Catholic, though? If someone is a "neocatholic," he isn't an actual Catholic. He is obedient to neo-Rome, not Eternal Rome.
Reply
#39
(10-13-2012, 03:33 PM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote: I picked choice one. The VII documents are like a bag of heretical potato chips you cant  pick just one. I think these three were the most heretical and caused the most damage to the Church.  Dignitatis Humanae Nostra Aetate Gaudium et Spes.  These documents at the very least are masonic and satanically inspired.

:LOL:  Let's not forget Lumen Gentium ("subsistit in") and Unitatis Redintegratio (all of article three).
Reply
#40
I think people are being a little pedantic about the poll.

The question is "which of the following is MOSTLY" responsible for the current state of the Church.  If your option isn't listed, click other.  For those who have said "it goes back further (than VII)" I'd agree.  It goes all the way back to Genesis when Adam at the apple.  Fine.  We know modernists were in the Church in the 1800's, nevermind the 1900's.  But c'mon, does anyone here really think some tract written by Fr Louisy or Baron whatshisface is MOSTLY responsible for the current state of the Church?  

More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)