Really Confused about Vatican II
#31
(10-07-2019, 12:50 AM)Paul Wrote:
(10-06-2019, 11:36 PM)Bonaventure Wrote: In that regard, I find it almost Protestant-like how easily anyone can say that their priest is in error and disregard such teaching.  That is, quite frankly, how we got into this mess into the first place.

I'd say it's the other way around. Obeying everything the clergy said in the 1970s is how we got into this mess.

While I can appreciate where you're coming from, I believe you'd still be wrong.  At least in the sense that you would be throwing out centuries of Tradition and replacing it with your own personal judgement, and moreover would have to rely upon the personal judgments of those around you.  That, to me, is the Protestant-like character of this.

As far as I know, both sides of my family have always been Catholic.  I'm sure, if I sat down and tried my best, I could trace my families' Catholic roots to its inception in France, its inception in Poland, and its inception in Ireland.  And based upon stories my grandparents have told me, to cross one's priest in matters of theology was unthinkable.  Add to that the rural nature of societies up until relatively recent times, which is all my family has really ever known, where not only travel was difficult, but uprooting one's family to even move from one parish to the next, was simply not much of an option.  In that regard, going against one's priest, who could simply deny you the Sacraments, was not really much of a consideration.  At least where I came from.  As such, I think it to be quite naive, especially in an historical context, to blithely tell someone that they need not listen to their priest/bishop/Pope whenever they believe they are teaching 'error', whatever that may mean.  It is for this reason I hold no ill-will towards my grandparents, and to a certain extent my parents for they were not yet adults at the time, for having had accepted the changes in the 1970's which you allude to above.  Of course they had misgivings of the Novus Ordo Missae, and they were absolutely appalled, not only by the changes to the mass, but more so to come to mass one Sunday to find that their priest--the priest that they had had for more than the past 25 years--had over the prior week entirely gutted their Church, literally having thrown statues, paintings, etc., into the garbage.  And I'm sure this same scenario happened in hundreds upon hundreds of parishes throughout the world.  So where were they to go? To their bishop, who backed the aged priest to the hilt?  To the archbishop who backed the bishop?   Sounds rather easy, doesn't it?  But in real life, it wasn't.  Not in the least.      

(10-07-2019, 12:50 AM)Paul Wrote: And when the bishops are calling for unlimited immigration, illegal or otherwise, calling it charity, and completely ignore what's charitable for the people who already live there, need jobs, and pay their taxes, are we bound to agree? Are we bound to agree that the death penalty is 'inadmissible', whatever that is, despite prior Popes imposing the death penalty, and that Something Must Be Done Right Now or we're all going to drown in 50 years when the sea levels rise since man is changing the climate? Is the Pope a science expert now?

Unfortunately, I do not have an easy answer for you on this point.  No one said being Catholic would be easy.  Nonetheless, I highly sympathize with you on these points, and conclude that much of what you raise above are simply not Precepts of the Church, and as such, are not binding by the pain of sin upon the laity.

(10-07-2019, 12:50 AM)Paul Wrote: St Pius X's catechism works well when the clergy are teaching orthodoxy. They haven't done much of that in 50 years.

Again, as much as I agree with your conclusion re: the past 50 years, I think it is a critical error to conclude that the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X (or the Roman Catechism, or the Baltimore Catechism, or even (most parts) of the CCC) only works some of the time.  It either works all the time, or it does not work at all.
Reply
#32
(10-07-2019, 09:44 AM)Bonaventure Wrote: While I can appreciate where you're coming from, I believe you'd still be wrong.  At least in the sense that you would be throwing out centuries of Tradition and replacing it with your own personal judgement, and moreover would have to rely upon the personal judgments of those around you.  That, to me, is the Protestant-like character of this.

As far as I know, both sides of my family have always been Catholic.  I'm sure, if I sat down and tried my best, I could trace my families' Catholic roots to its inception in France, its inception in Poland, and its inception in Ireland.  And based upon stories my grandparents have told me, to cross one's priest in matters of theology was unthinkable.  Add to that the rural nature of societies up until relatively recent times, which is all my family has really ever known, where not only travel was difficult, but uprooting one's family to even move from one parish to the next, was simply not much of an option.  In that regard, going against one's priest, who could simply deny you the Sacraments, was not really much of a consideration.

If all you have is your own local priest, and you don't know any better, and you can't find out otherwise, then you listen to your priest, and if he's wrong, it's on him, not you. But these days, we do know what the Church teaches, and the contradictions, or at least what seem to be contradictions, are apparent. 'Error has no rights', on the one hand, but then Vatican II seems to tell us that everyone has a right to practice whatever religion he wants. They can't both be true. Either one is false, or we misunderstand them. In the past, we'd ask our priest what's correct, and if he didn't know, he'd ask his bishop, and if the bishop didn't know, he'd ask Rome. But Rome won't clarify things these days. Just look at the questions over Amoris lætitia.

It's not - or shouldn't be - a question of one's own opinion. It's about what the Church has always taught, and that's the difference between the current crisis and Protestantism.

(10-07-2019, 09:44 AM)Bonaventure Wrote: Unfortunately, I do not have an easy answer for you on this point.  No one said being Catholic would be easy.  Nonetheless, I highly sympathize with you on these points, and conclude that much of what you raise above are simply not Precepts of the Church, and as such, are not binding by the pain of sin upon the laity.

They are, however, matters of morals. Is it moral to execute criminals, or not? If so, under what conditions? Only murderers? Or only when a society doesn't have good prisons? Is it never permissible if a particular society is racist? Or if the courts are? Who decides how racist the courts are?

If we're to listen to the bishops on matters of morals, a Catholic must not only reject the death penalty, but accept their judgment that the United States is a thoroughly racist society. Except the data don't support that.

(10-07-2019, 09:44 AM)Bonaventure Wrote: Again, as much as I agree with your conclusion re: the past 50 years, I think it is a critical error to conclude that the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X (or the Roman Catechism, or the Baltimore Catechism, or even (most parts) of the CCC) only works some of the time.  It either works all the time, or it does not work at all.

The Catechism you quoted doesn't say to ignore your priest when he tells you clear heresy. If he says that Jesus isn't God, but only a man, you don't listen. Catechisms are simplified, and don't have all the details that matter, especially in a time like today. But it also doesn't say we're to listen to every priest or bishop. We're to listen to the Church, but the Pope and bishops aren't the Church. Besides, has Pope Francis really said anything that he's intending to be binding? It's all vague.
[-] The following 2 users Like Paul's post:
  • jovan66102, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#33
Were the Christians of the time of the Arian crisis blithely following their priests and bishops into error?  Some did, yes, but some resisted and helped "dissidents" like St. Athanasius.  It is not a pious tradition to follow one's perfidious shepherds into hell.  We are not to be unthinking, unquestioning drones.
[-] The following 6 users Like mpk1987's post:
  • Augustinian, Eric F, Imperator Caesar Trump, jovan66102, MagisterMusicae, Zedta
Reply
#34
(10-07-2019, 01:54 PM)Paul Wrote: It's not - or shouldn't be - a question of one's own opinion. It's about what the Church has always taught, and that's the difference between the current crisis and Protestantism.

I do not disagree with the first part.  However, are you saying, that in circa 1970, when nearly all the bishops/priests, save one bishop (+Lefebvre), was instituting the Novus Ordo Missae promulgated by the then Pope Montini, everyone should have immediately and unequivocally recognized this as error?  That's what you, and others here, make it sound like.  While we can Monday-morning quarterback that point in time all we want, I do not think it's that simple.  Nor do I think the average lay person was in any position to question it.

(10-07-2019, 01:54 PM)Paul Wrote: They are, however, matters of morals. Is it moral to execute criminals, or not? If so, under what conditions? Only murderers? Or only when a society doesn't have good prisons? Is it never permissible if a particular society is racist? Or if the courts are? Who decides how racist the courts are?

As I said, I highly sympathized with your points. In that regard, I need not answer the above questions, because I have the very same ones.  

(10-07-2019, 01:54 PM)Paul Wrote: The Catechism you quoted doesn't say to ignore your priest when he tells you clear heresy.
 
Which I already acknowledged, and was the point I was making.  The whole point of the catechism is to provide basic instruction, which it generally does in a positive manner.  But when said instruction does not specifically include what you provided above, which is instruction in a negative manner (i.e., "...the Church has never taught..."), the distinction, especially as to what constitutes 'error,' becomes less clear.  I can easily point to many instructions, which I did above, which clearly point to the teaching of the Church indicating a reliance upon the priest/bishop/Pope.  But there is nothing in any catechism I am aware of that specifically states: "You shall not listen to a priest/bishop/pope putting forth error."  In that regard, what you appear to be espousing is a reliance on personal, subjective judgment, which can, and does, vary from person to person.  To me, that smacks of Protestantism.  That's simply not how the Church was set up, or at least not how I understand it.  

(10-07-2019, 01:54 PM)Paul Wrote: If he says that Jesus isn't God, but only a man, you don't listen.

But of course. That's over-the-top obvious.  But when it is not so obvious? For example, when one was presented with the Novus Ordo Missae, signed by the Pope, you're telling me that this would have been an instance of clear, unambiguous error that one did not have to follow?

(10-07-2019, 01:54 PM)Paul Wrote: Besides, has Pope Francis really said anything that he's intending to be binding? It's all vague.

And I would add diabolical.  "But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil." Matthew 5:37
Reply
#35
(10-07-2019, 02:01 PM)mpk1987 Wrote: Were the Christians of the time of the Arian crisis blithely following their priests and bishops into error?  Some did, yes, but some resisted and helped "dissidents" like St. Athanasius.  It is not a pious tradition to follow one's perfidious shepherds into hell.  We are not to be unthinking, unquestioning drones.

Ok. However, if you're going to use the Arian crisis as an analogy of our modern crisis, where the Church was essentially split in two, and recalling that the initial subject of this thread was VCII, then it would appear that what we have is a pre-Conciliar and a post-Conciliar Church.  And again, using your Arian crisis analogy, one would need to pick from those, no?  

So, choosing the post-Conciliar Church, our only option appears to be the acceptance of ClownMass, Bergoglio et al., and the parade of horribles that follows.  Sorry, not all that enticing.

Choosing the pre-Conciliar Church, our options would appear to be one of the following: SSPX; SSPV; or the 'Sedes' (wherein the Chair of St. Peter has been vacant for more than the past 60 years, there are no (maybe one?) valid bishops remaining and the Apostolic succession is or will soon be ended, so everyone stay at home on Sunday's, pray the Rosary and wait for Armageddon).  Again, sorry, but none of these options are all that enticing either.

Conclusion: The Arian crisis is not an apt analogy to the crisis we face today.
Reply
#36
(10-07-2019, 03:32 PM)Bonaventure Wrote: I do not disagree with the first part.  However, are you saying, that in circa 1970, when nearly all the bishops/priests, save one bishop (+Lefebvre), was instituting the Novus Ordo Missae promulgated by the then Pope Montini, everyone should have immediately and unequivocally recognized this as error?  That's what you, and others here, make it sound like.  While we can Monday-morning quarterback that point in time all we want, I do not think it's that simple.  Nor do I think the average lay person was in any position to question it.

Maybe not, but that's what's led to the problems today. But the errors are more than the new Missal. There's nothing in the new Mass that requires altars to be turned around and Communion received in the hand. In fact, the rubrics tell the priest, at various points, to turn and say certain things facing the people. Many of the objectionable practices, including Communion in the hand and female altar boys, came out of disobedience, and they kept doing them until the Vatican finally gave in.

It's also far more than just the Mass. The new Missal has problems, but celebrated reverently, according to the rubrics, and using the Roman Canon, it's not that different from the older Mass, other than the Offertory. At least not different enough to be clearly heretical. But there's all the other issues of Vatican II, from religious liberty to whether the Jews need Christ to be saved, and we never get clear answers on how the old and new fit together. Instead, we get people like Cardinal Kasper who insist the new way is all that matters. Pope Pius XII gave a talk about how the death penalty is very much justified. Pope Francis says it's inadmissible. Which is it?

(10-07-2019, 03:32 PM)Bonaventure Wrote: As I said, I highly sympathized with your points. In that regard, I need not answer the above questions, because I have the very same ones.

You say we're to listen to the bishops no matter what. The bishops, at least the USCCB, have answered them, so, if you're right, you shouldn't have them. I think we're both right to question them, because we both know what the Church teaches about immigration, about the death penalty, about the distinction between Church and State, and about prudential judgments rather than definitive teachings on faith and morals.

(10-07-2019, 03:32 PM)Bonaventure Wrote:
(10-07-2019, 01:54 PM)Paul Wrote: If he says that Jesus isn't God, but only a man, you don't listen.

But of course. That's over-the-top obvious.  But when it is not so obvious? For example, when one was presented with the Novus Ordo Missae, signed by the Pope, you're telling me that this would have been an instance of clear, unambiguous error that one did not have to follow?

Obvious, but the Catechism doesn't say it. And if it's permissible to disagree then, then you can't say 'never'. I think it's completely obvious now with what Pope Francis is doing, and, since Amoris lætitia and his change to the Catechism on the death penalty, plenty of other Catholics are seeing it, too.

I do agree there can be a danger in trusting one's own judgment instead of the Church, and that leads to Protestantism. But there's also a big difference. For the Protestant, it's his own judgment, and what he thinks Scripture means, that determines correct doctrine. For the Catholic, it's not his own opinion, but what the Church has always taught. If a Catholic supports the death penalty, it's not because he personally thinks murderers deserve death, or because he doesn't think tax money should be spent on criminals, and the Church is just wrong. It's because the Church has always taught it as moral, and it's not at all ambiguous. Even where some of the Fathers argued judges shouldn't sentence to death and should grant mercy, it was never because they said the state lacked authority, or that it violated the dignity of the condemned. Even John Paul II and Benedict XVI upheld the authority of the state to execute, even if it's hardly necessary today. Prisons haven't changed in 10 years.

I don't mean for this to be all about capital punishment, but you want obvious error - here it is. And I haven't mentioned John XXII, whose belief that the saved don't immediately enjoy the Beatific Vision, but had to wait until the Last Judgment, was attacked at the time. Popes can be wrong.
Reply
#37
(10-07-2019, 03:48 PM)Bonaventure Wrote: So, choosing the post-Conciliar Church, our only option appears to be the acceptance of ClownMass, Bergoglio et al., and the parade of horribles that follows.  Sorry, not all that enticing.

Choosing the pre-Conciliar Church, our options would appear to be one of the following: SSPX; SSPV; or the 'Sedes' (wherein the Chair of St. Peter has been vacant for more than the past 60 years, there are no (maybe one?) valid bishops remaining and the Apostolic succession is or will soon be ended, so everyone stay at home on Sunday's, pray the Rosary and wait for Armageddon).  Again, sorry, but none of these options are all that enticing either.

Abusus non tollit usum. Just because some priests dress up as clowns doesn't make the new Mass itself heretical, any more than some priests abusing minors makes the priesthood wrong. It does feel like there are two completely different Churches, but the traditional liturgy is accessible within the Church, through the FSSP, ICR, and others, and many diocesan Masses unaffiliated with those groups. The SSPX is also within the Church, but even if one's uncomfortable with their irregular situation, there are other Masses.

Our Lord never promised perfect Churchmen. Even St Peter denied him, and we've had plenty of corrupt Popes before. What's different with this crisis is the confusion, but maybe it's going on now because people have access to far more information than ever before, and it's not hard to find out what the Church has always taught. It's not a matter of picking which Church to follow - there's only one - but of figuring out how what's being said now can fit with what's been taught before. Some issues are easier than others. Many of them, though, aren't all that relevant to our own salvation. If the Vatican is saying that religious liberty is a right, then how does allowing Protestants to worship at the church down the street keep you from getting to heaven?
Reply
#38
(10-07-2019, 04:07 PM)Paul Wrote:
(10-07-2019, 03:32 PM)Bonaventure Wrote: I do not disagree with the first part.  However, are you saying, that in circa 1970, when nearly all the bishops/priests, save one bishop (+Lefebvre), was instituting the Novus Ordo Missae promulgated by the then Pope Montini, everyone should have immediately and unequivocally recognized this as error?  That's what you, and others here, make it sound like.  While we can Monday-morning quarterback that point in time all we want, I do not think it's that simple.  Nor do I think the average lay person was in any position to question it.

Maybe not, but that's what's led to the problems today. But the errors are more than the new Missal. There's nothing in the new Mass that requires altars to be turned around and Communion received in the hand. In fact, the rubrics tell the priest, at various points, to turn and say certain things facing the people. Many of the objectionable practices, including Communion in the hand and female altar boys, came out of disobedience, and they kept doing them until the Vatican finally gave in.

It's also far more than just the Mass. The new Missal has problems, but celebrated reverently, according to the rubrics, and using the Roman Canon, it's not that different from the older Mass, other than the Offertory. At least not different enough to be clearly heretical. But there's all the other issues of Vatican II, from religious liberty to whether the Jews need Christ to be saved, and we never get clear answers on how the old and new fit together. Instead, we get people like Cardinal Kasper who insist the new way is all that matters.

And therein lies the nebula of when/where the 'error(s)' occurred, and underlies my whole point that the recognition of said 'error(s)' is not an easy thing to do.

(10-07-2019, 04:07 PM)Paul Wrote: You say we're to listen to the bishops no matter what.

Nope.  That is not at all what I said.  

I said the catechism teaches one thing, which in this case was to follow the priest/bishop/Pope, and that the catechism is the basic tool upon which the laity are taught the magisterium of the Church.  And then others pipe in with stuff that is not explicitly in the catechism, and act as if the laity are supposed to recognize 'error(s)' tout suite, and then be held responsible if they do not, as if such instances are  all easy-to-understand black/white issues that everyone is supposed to follow based upon, well, that's not really clear.  My point was that that type of thinking opens the Pandora's Box to personal judgment, which itself is quite risky and Protestant-like.   

(10-07-2019, 04:07 PM)Paul Wrote:
(10-07-2019, 03:32 PM)Bonaventure Wrote:
(10-07-2019, 01:54 PM)Paul Wrote: If he says that Jesus isn't God, but only a man, you don't listen.

But of course. That's over-the-top obvious.  But when it is not so obvious? For example, when one was presented with the Novus Ordo Missae, signed by the Pope, you're telling me that this would have been an instance of clear, unambiguous error that one did not have to follow?

Obvious, but the Catechism doesn't say it.

Um, yes it does.  In fact, numerous times.  It's over-the-top-obvious because the catechism explicitly states that Jesus is not only a man, but a part of the Triune, etc.  This is a textbook example of how the average laity can know that a priest/bishop/Pope is preaching error because it directly contradicts the catechism.
Reply
#39
(10-07-2019, 05:09 PM) pid=\1405195' Wrote:[quote pid='1405193' dateline='1570478842']
(10-07-2019, 03:32 PM)Bonaventure Wrote:
(10-07-2019, 01:54 PM)Paul Wrote: If he says that Jesus isn't God, but only a man, you don't listen.

But of course. That's over-the-top obvious.  But when it is not so obvious? For example, when one was presented with the Novus Ordo Missae, signed by the Pope, you're telling me that this would have been an instance of clear, unambiguous error that one did not have to follow?

Obvious, but the Catechism doesn't say it.

Um, yes it does.  In fact, numerous times.  It's over-the-top-obvious because the catechism explicitly states that Jesus is not only a man, but a part of the Triune, etc.  This is a textbook example of how the average laity can know that a priest/bishop/Pope is preaching error because it directly contradicts the catechism.
[/quote]

Yes, the catechism teaches that Christ is God, but it never says 'Follow your Priest, unless he says Jesus isn't God'.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#40
(10-07-2019, 04:20 PM)Paul Wrote:
(10-07-2019, 03:48 PM)Bonaventure Wrote: So, choosing the post-Conciliar Church, our only option appears to be the acceptance of ClownMass, Bergoglio et al., and the parade of horribles that follows.  Sorry, not all that enticing.

Choosing the pre-Conciliar Church, our options would appear to be one of the following: SSPX; SSPV; or the 'Sedes' (wherein the Chair of St. Peter has been vacant for more than the past 60 years, there are no (maybe one?) valid bishops remaining and the Apostolic succession is or will soon be ended, so everyone stay at home on Sunday's, pray the Rosary and wait for Armageddon).  Again, sorry, but none of these options are all that enticing either.

Abusus non tollit usum. Just because some priests dress up as clowns doesn't make the new Mass itself heretical, any more than some priests abusing minors makes the priesthood wrong. It does feel like there are two completely different Churches, but the traditional liturgy is accessible within the Church, through the FSSP, ICR, and others, and many diocesan Masses unaffiliated with those groups. The SSPX is also within the Church, but even if one's uncomfortable with their irregular situation, there are other Masses.

Our Lord never promised perfect Churchmen. Even St Peter denied him, and we've had plenty of corrupt Popes before. What's different with this crisis is the confusion, but maybe it's going on now because people have access to far more information than ever before, and it's not hard to find out what the Church has always taught. It's not a matter of picking which Church to follow - there's only one - but of figuring out how what's being said now can fit with what's been taught before. Some issues are easier than others. Many of them, though, aren't all that relevant to our own salvation. If the Vatican is saying that religious liberty is a right, then how does allowing Protestants to worship at the church down the street keep you from getting to heaven?

But you've taken my above writing out of context.  In order for this to be truly analogous to the Arian heresy, we need to recognize a defined, concrete split in the Church.  If it was not VCII, if it was not the Novus Ordo Missae, then what was it? If that can not even be defined, then how can a universal remedy be applied?

If it is your position that instead we have what amounts to 'death by a thousand cuts', wherein minor abuses here and there, occurring and accumulating, sometimes minor abuses added to minor abuses, over a period of 50+ years, is what lead us to the now obvious overall 'error' (and, generally, I would not be in disagreement with that), then we do not have a present heresy crisis of the Arian-type.  Instead, what we have today is something entirely different, and in many respects, more dangerous than the Arian heresy.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)