A Critical Look at the Fruit of Vatican II
#41
Quote:There is, in my mind, a danger in such an approach where no rules are followed or the rules are seen as a hindrance. It is precisely through rules, order, boundaries that we best give ourselves. One cannot say they love without virtue, and virtue binds to certain thoughts, words and deeds. One cannot say they are a good husband when they violate the boundaries of being a husband in the name of love and self-giving. A man who sits around the house writing sonnets to his wife, but not working to feed her, is actually a bad husband. It is inside the boundaries that we find true freedom. We have obligations and these obligations are ordered to inculcate and continue virtue. We cannot give self without denying, in some way, self. What you are describing is, to me, a quick road to selfish, man-made concepts wherein we lose focus on God. We're all guilty of this in some way, but as a convert I see in the Novus Ordo/Post- JPII crowd a very, very Protestant mindset that all but despises the Church. 

This is where the catechesis of the Conciliar Popes (esp. John Paul) comes in. The end of the rules is to foster the love of God, and love of neighbor for His sake. It makes no sense to say that a man commits adultery out of self-gift of his wife, but he who never commits adultery simply because it's forbidden represents incomplete catechesis.The rules are important (they're critical commands from Our Lord Himself), but they are means to an end, not the end themselves. This is the beauty of the Council -  though aspects of it had been articulated with varying clarity earlier in Tradition - that we live according to the Commandments, but the Commandments are not the end themselves. This is the enduring fruit of the Council, that which remains after the heresies have had their say.

Reply
#42
As a convert I read the main documents of Vatican II, and did not find your interpretation. As the Council was written to people like me, and I have yet to come across someone who was not Catholic and found such an interpretation, I find the fruit of Vatican II to be nothing as claimed by the Popes. One cannot say they have built a road for people to drive on when those people have no cars or concept of driving. It's high time people pull their heads out and recognize the Council was a failure to all but the man in the mirror.
Reply
#43
I too am a convert, and I too shared your apprehensions. But I have allowed my opinions to be influenced and shaped by the teachings of the Popes and the Ordinary Magisterium. I warmly suggest you do the same.
Reply
#44
These are not apprehensions, but convictions, based on Pre-Vatican II teachings of Popes which ARE clear and cannot be shaped into whatever one wants to say.

Reply
#45
I too am a convert, and I tend to agree with Horton. I've tried (with alot of effort) to make sense of what VII says in some areas of the documents compared to what the Church has taught in the past and it's a real chore at times. I trust the Church, don't get me wrong, and I know she could never knowingly poison it's members, but VII is a unique animal that simply has no precedence in it's approach to "re-packaging the faith." I just try to stick with tradition and surround myself with it as much as possible and remain faithful. Very tough to do (not impossible) those things in the NO world, so I and my family only assist at Latin Masses and participate in the ancient customs whenever we can.
Reply
#46
Quote:I too am a convert, and I tend to agree with Horton. I've tried (with alot of effort) to make sense of what VII says in some areas of the documents compared to what the Church has taught in the past and it's a real chore at times. I trust the Church, don't get me wrong, and I know she could never knowingly poison it's members, but VII is a unique animal that simply has no precedence in it's approach to "re-packaging the faith." I just try to stick with tradition and surround myself with it as much as possible and remain faithful. Very tough to do (not impossible) those things in the NO world, so I and my family only assist at Latin Masses and participate in the ancient customs whenever we can.

Truly. This is why learning only from pious men is a laudable thing. Your sensus fidei will keep you away from heretics like Kung, Schillebeeckx, and Bokkennotter, and their ilk. John Paul II, the Catechism (which draws on Vatican II the way the Roman Catechism draws on Trent, and is frequently more clear in its presentation of difficult doctrines), Benedict XVI, Archbishop Sheen, etc - these are your recommended guides to the Council.
Reply
#47
(06-08-2013, 04:59 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote: I too am a convert, and I too shared your apprehensions. But I have allowed my opinions to be influenced and shaped by the teachings of the Popes and the Ordinary Magisterium. I warmly suggest you do the same.

Remember, the phrase "ordinary magisterium" can refer to two distinct things: (1) the authority of the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him to teach Catholic doctrine (i.e."authentic magisterium") (2) the content of those perennial teachings that are part of the deposit of the faith and are, thus, infallible (i.e. the "Ordinary and Universal Magisterium"). So, we have a distinction between the magisterium qua subject and the magisterium qua object.

Now, can a teaching in the former category contradict a teaching the latter category? Yes, it can and there are many instances of that happening: from John XXII contradicting the perennial teaching of the Church regarding the state of the Blessed to John Paul II teaching in his Wednesday audiences that Heaven and Hells are "states" and not places (the truth is that they are both).

So, recommending the "Ordinary Magisterium" as the guide to shaping one's opinions (what happened to belief?) fails to account for the fact that a teaching in this category, insofar as it embraces teachings of the authentic magisterium, can be erroneous. The Catholic faith is not an exercise in trying to shoot at a constantly moving target by shouting "credo!" to whatever falls from the lips of the current Roman Pontiff. For a teaching to demand the obedience of faith it must possess all the notes of infallibility, that is be defined as a dogma or taught "everywhere, always, and by all".

So, it's important to be clear what you mean when you use the word "magisterium".
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)