tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post1930765835523474836..comments2024-01-22T01:52:37.473-06:00Comments on RENEGADE TRADS: LiberalismA Sinnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post-60623004851886232012-04-25T08:33:32.092-05:002012-04-25T08:33:32.092-05:00Excellent observations, as usual, A Sinner.Excellent observations, as usual, A Sinner.Pater, O.S.B.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post-79620229677480976922012-04-24T08:55:19.371-05:002012-04-24T08:55:19.371-05:00Sorry, but I can not see how the SSPX-response is ...Sorry, but I can not see how the SSPX-response is "bizarre" and "freaky"<br />- it´s is just sound Catholic - in a clear way, that we are not used to anymore in our time of ambiguouse-"new-speak".Picardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post-63772298348610103752012-04-21T10:17:28.828-05:002012-04-21T10:17:28.828-05:00I agree that liturgical abuses have reigned since ...I agree that liturgical abuses have reigned since it, but I do not believe those were within the view of the Council. See the Sacrosancum Concilium http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html.<br />I also don't think it matters whether it was a dogmatic or pastoral council in the ultimate state of things. It is still the authoritative voice of the Church.Garrison Copelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08591609379120246203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post-84678293073331816362012-04-21T01:00:13.284-05:002012-04-21T01:00:13.284-05:00The documents of VII are just as varied in thought...The documents of VII are just as varied in thought and doctrine as the bishops who headed the committees that created them. I only accept the council as a pastoral council and maybe a dogmatic council if some of its documents are a clarification of previous councils.<br /><br />In terms of application, I like the intellectual freedom, pastoral sensitivity and open dialogue with other religions that the council espoused, but I hate what it did to liturgy and small traditions. I love the Council, but hate the Novus Ordo.Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post-60434365895198912052012-04-20T21:58:16.006-05:002012-04-20T21:58:16.006-05:00But it is infallible. The Fathers of the Council w...But it is infallible. The Fathers of the Council were preserved from error (what "infallible" means when talking about the Church) as are all Ecumenical Councils.<br />You should read the conciliar documents. Vatican II most certainly did define and promote teachings. For example, the dogma of papal infallibility was rightly brought back into balance with the propagation of the teaching on the collegiality of the bishops. Also, the statements made in the Council, though they may have not been declared binding, as well as the fact that the Magisterium continues to rely on those documents for such teachings as on religious freedom lends great weight. Again, not as if it really needed additional authority. Does a council have to have "anathema sit!" attached to it to be authoritative? I'm pretty sure the Council was trying to avoid such a thing.<br />Vatican II deserves much more respect than such a dismissive reply. The documents of the Council are worthy for all the faithful to read and interpret in light of Tradition as well as interpreting Tradition through those documents.<br />It certainly seems most are reacting to the excesses that occurred after and without the approval of the Council in the name of some ill-defined "Spirit of Vatican II."<br />As for the Council being an "experiment" (seriously?), both the Pope and the Magisterium seem to be committed to it, so we move forward with it.Garrison Copelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08591609379120246203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post-12582939386376440812012-04-20T16:46:50.625-05:002012-04-20T16:46:50.625-05:00You have to make all the proper distinction, thoug...You have to make all the proper distinction, though. In what way is Vatican II infallible, and for that matter, how are the other ones infallible? Not every piece of a Council document is infallible. Disciplinary issues are an obvious example. <br /><br />With a Council like VII that specifically chose to "remain on a modest, pastoral level..." (per then Cardinal Ratzinger) much of what it said needs all the more to be read according to previous teaching as it did not define anything or anathematize anything like previous Councils did. <br /><br />It deserves respect, certainly, but at this point the best we can do with it would be to say something to the effect of, "Well, that was an interesting experiment..." and consign it to the history books.dominic1955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post-53310850782914849472012-04-20T10:51:30.720-05:002012-04-20T10:51:30.720-05:00"If the Emperor is naked, we don't respec..."If the Emperor is naked, we don't respect him just because he's the Emperor..."<br />Actually, we do respect him as the Emperor even though he is naked. We also let him know that he is naked. And we do respect the Ecumenical Councils of the Church of which the Second Vatican Council is one. Even if it is later clarified (as it clarified the First Vatican Council), it is still due respect as an infallible part of the Tradition.Garrison Copelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08591609379120246203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post-49843987682234523652012-04-20T00:10:18.682-05:002012-04-20T00:10:18.682-05:00I recall having left a comment prior, but perhaps ...I recall having left a comment prior, but perhaps my Google account is acting up.<br /><br />It's not a matter of VII being problematic, and this in turn being a neo-Con response in it's defense. Rather, when read in light of the collective of the Church's Tradition (East, and West), the documents themselves are QUITE clear. The problem is, the West never adapted to the discourse employed therein, hence the disastrous results limited to the Church in the West. The other Churches didn't seem to experience the same problems in it's application. ;-)<br /><br />However, you may all take that as you please, and draw our your own conclusions on the matter.Who Am Ihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06411910912225565488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post-19023457147006861202012-04-19T18:21:58.567-05:002012-04-19T18:21:58.567-05:00Things have to earn our respect by being respectab...Things have to earn our respect by being respectable.<br /><br />If the Emperor is naked, we don't respect him just because he's the Emperor...A Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post-52513280572692943812012-04-19T17:52:09.743-05:002012-04-19T17:52:09.743-05:00It is completely appropriate for the bishops and f...It is completely appropriate for the bishops and faithful to support Vatican II and the documents that came out of it. It deserves respect as an ecumenical council.Garrison Copelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08591609379120246203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post-71016396667605058082012-04-18T17:11:32.616-05:002012-04-18T17:11:32.616-05:00I think the USCCB document is pretty clear about d...I think the USCCB document is pretty clear about distinguishing between the church as a divine and "catholic" institution and dealing with its current practical situation in America. Granted, it does have *some* VII sympathizing, but how does this compromise the the church's claim towards being the "true church"? The SSPX crowd is simply reacting to what they mistakenly think is an attack on the church's claim for being the "true church." What the document really says, however, is that religious liberty is legally necessary, at least in this country, for the church to continue to be able to freely assert itself in the public forum. Yes, the church can go underground and street-preach, but why choose that over greater legal protection and flexibility? I think it's more of an issue of church vs. state. Do we want a Catholic monarchy in a non-Catholic country?Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post-1987663508618940372012-04-18T15:59:12.605-05:002012-04-18T15:59:12.605-05:00I think the first thing is to create a culture tha...I think the first thing is to create a culture that is uniquely Catholic, at least within the Church. In other words, it's fine to meet the world where it's at when you're going out to meet the world, on the world's own turf. But within our own churches at least, let's be who we are and stop trying to imitate the surrounding culture or bring the worldly culture into our churches. <br /><br />And this starts, I think, with our art: Music, architecture, sculpture, painting, etc., as well as our own religious vocabulary -- again, not trying to express Catholic ideas in the culture's terms, but using our own traditional terms. <br /><br />This may sound like adopting a ghetto mentality, but it's really not. If you look at old -- say, pre-1950 movies portraying the Church, you see Catholics engaging with the world, enjoying worldly activities and worldly art, like "normal" people. But when you go inside a Catholic church (in the movie), convent, or rectory, you find yourself within a definite Catholic environment which is not trying to incorporate the surrounding culture into itself, nor trying to impose itself on the surrounding culture, but simply being comfortable in its own skin. <br /><br />And then, of course, we need to be unapologetic about righteousness and sin. The seriousness and danger of sin needs to be preached from the pulpit regularly, as well as the pursuit of holiness (I put sin first only because we hardly ever hear about sin as such, whereas holiness is spoken of at least on occasion). <br /><br />I think the combination of our own unique culture, of which we are unashamed, and the restoration of preaching on traditional notions of holiness and sin, would help to restore the "tribal conformity" which can at least act as a foundation from which, as you mention elsewhere, genuine conversions could eventually grow. But we need to be strong in our own culture before we can have the slightest hope of influencing the culture around us. Don't you think?Agelliushttp://agellius.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com