Jedi Council Forums - Catholicism

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

« 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 » - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: Catholicism
KnightWriter Title: Administrator Emeritus Registered: Nov '01	Date Posted: 8/19/05 7:41pm Subject: RE: Catholicism - Date Edited: 8/19/05 7:42pm (1 edits total) Edited By: KnightWriter
	Note that 77% of the "children" were males, and most of them were adolescents. That doesn't sound like rape. It sounds like old-fashioned homosexual sex (man and a male adolescent) to me. I'm not sure where you get your info from, but that's blatantly false. I can recall plenty of stories of children under the age of 13 who were molested. Regardless of the age of the people who were molested, it was clearly and terribly wrong in each case. I have not heard of a single traditionalist priest committing these sins. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. I don't know why people get the iea that if they haven't heard of something, it must be true or untrue (depending on the case). -----signature----- "May you live all the days of your life"
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Registered: Dec '00	Date Posted: 8/19/05 9:53pm Subject: RE: Catholicism
	B_S, I don't disagree that Vatican II might have contributed greatly to the decline of the Catholic Church, I just have a more, shall we say, idealistic view of how many Catholics will respond if Vatican II is reversed. Here's my view: Vatican II allowed services to be conducted in native languages, which made it much easier for the average Joe to understand what was going on. The greater comprehension diminished the mystical aura that the religion had. This understanding of what the church was actually saying, combined with the increased prevalence of secular reasoning in society, is what I think caused the decrease in church memebership. As I see it, if someone is educated and reasonable enough, they will see through the folly of religion. Keeping the mass in Latin is a way of keeping the common man uninformed and ignorant, which seems to be the best way to keep religious enrollment high.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth_Overlord Registered: Jul '01	Date Posted: 8/20/05 12:46am Subject: RE: Catholicism - Date Edited: 8/20/05 12:48am (1 edits total) Edited By: Darth_Overlord
	Wow, a lot has been going on in the last few hours. First of all, the Tridentine (1962) Mass. The Tridentine Mass is alive and well (though perhaps not in all areas) and John Paul II's Ecclesia Dei has a lot to do with that. There is a church here that has a latin Mass every Sunday morning and on holy days. One of my friends serves at this mass regularly and is seriously considering joining the FSSP (Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter). There's also a group pilgrimage to World Youth Day called Juventutem that celebrates the Tridentine Rite daily (with the Pope's encouragement, at that). I've been to latin Mass several times and I love how the ritual gives proper reverence and mystery to the Eucharist. However I disagree that the Novus Ordo Rite can't do this IF it is done according to the provisions set out in the G.I.R.M. (General Instruction of he Roman Missal). My ideal would be to see both the Tridentine and Novus Ordo Rites exist side by side, perhaps even in every Roman Catholic Church in the world. Don't forget that the Church already had multiple Rites (Byzantine, Chaldean, etc.) pre-Vatican II. It also isn't possible to simply dispose of the Novus Ordo rite as if it never existed. As then-Cardinal Ratzinger said, "If by ‘restoration’ is meant a turning back, no restoration of such a kind is possible. The Church moves forward toward the consummation of history, she looks ahead to the Lord who is coming. No, there is no going back, nor is it possible to go back." (Spirit of the Liturgy) Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon, I doubt the introduction of the vernacular had such a direct impact as you suggest. The Tridentine Rite was readily available in multiple translations in the form of missals. Anyone could simply read what the priest was saying. I have a couple of these myself, one is dated 1961 the other 1942. Also, might I suggest, Binary_Sunset, that your problems with Vatican II are not against the Council itself, but the so-called "Spirit of Vatican II" (what I like to call the "Poltergeist of Vatican II"). A lot of things are done in the name of Vatican II that are contrary to it or simply not there. For example, "The use of Latin is to be preserved in the Latin rites." (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy). Nowhere does it say that the Tabernacle should be removed from the center of the church, placed in a broom closet, and locked up in something that could be mistaken for minimalist sculpture rather than the Dwellingplace of the Lord. It also forbids "creativity" on the part of anyone when it comes to the liturgy, "Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See, and, as laws may determine, on the bishop[...]Therefore no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority." (Ibid.) If I were under the impression that what people claim Vatican II said to do Vatican II said to do, I'd be right with you. But if you actually read the documents, you may be pleasantly surprised. Again, quoting the Pope,"Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has been clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly also the two previous councils. And that also applies to the so-called ‘progressivism,’ at least in its extreme forms…It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I and against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation" (Ratzinger Report) Now, wherever orthodoxy exists, that's where the Church prospers most. As to your list, #1 and #3: Great! #2: fine, though I don't understand why what John Paul II did isn't sasifactory. #4: See above #5: There's really nothing invalid about it, so fine by me. No, it wasn't. Instead, it was a bad move by the Church, pushed on Paul by church hardliners. At one point in 1967, Paul said in an interview that he didn't know which way to go with it. Unfortunately, the conservatives ended up getting to him. Actually, that's a good example of how infallibility works by protecting the deposit of faith while not infringing on free will. Paul VI personally didn't know what to make of it, but when guided by the Holy Spirit, the answer was definitively "no" to artifical contraceptives. Can anyone provide info on the alleged involvement of Ratzinger in the sex abuse cover-up? The only time I heard anything about the Vatican being involved it was over a document that turned out to be about maintaining the seal of the confessional when there is a charge of solicitation (a priest using the confessional to make sexual advances). -----signature----- "The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." -G.K. Chesterton
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
severian28 Registered: Apr '04	Date Posted: 8/20/05 2:37am Subject: RE: Catholicism
	Just google Ratzenger and Catholic sex scandal, Binary. He was the guy MOST responsible for the disinformation concerning Catholic priests molesting children. -----signature----- " Bring the sled " - Al Swearengen " Dying all the time. Lose your dreams and you will lose your mind. Aint life unkind? " - The Rolling Stones
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Binary_Sunset Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 8/20/05 9:21am Subject: RE: Catholicism - Date Edited: 8/20/05 9:25am (3 edits total) Edited By: Binary_Sunset
	KnightWriter posted: Note that 77% of the "children" were males, and most of them were adolescents. That doesn't sound like rape. It sounds like old-fashioned homosexual sex (man and a male adolescent) to me. I'm not sure where you get your info from, but that's blatantly false. I can recall plenty of stories of children under the age of 13 who were molested. Regardless of the age of the people who were molested, it was clearly and terribly wrong in each case. I have not heard of a single traditionalist priest committing these sins. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. I don't know why people get the iea that if they haven't heard of something, it must be true or untrue (depending on the case). My statistics were from memory. I just looked up the actual statistics in A Report on the Crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States. Here is the report in PDF: http://www.priestsofdarkness.com/johnjayreport.pdf Here is the same report in HTML: http://www.nccbuscc.org/nrb/nrbstudy/nrbreport.htm Here are the relevant statistics from page 26 of the PDF report: 81% of the victims were male. 78% of the victims were between the ages of 11 and 17 The footnote on that page reads: 'The crisis has often been referred to in as one of "pedophile priests," which is an inaccurate, or incomplete, appellation. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (IV) classifies pedophilia as a psychiatric disorder and defines it as the sexual attraction of an adult to pre-pubescent children. According to the John Jay College researchers, although it is difficult to make generalizations about whether a particular act of sexual abuse of a minor qualifies as an act of pedophilia, and the age at which puberty begins varies for each child, molestation that begins when the child is under the age of eleven is generally accepted as indicative of pedophilia.' The footnote on page 27 (PDF) notes that the correct term for the majority of these priests is "ephebophiles", defined there as "adult men who are sexually attracted primarily to adolescent males". The typical priestly abuser, then, is not preying on little kids. He is a homosexual lusting after "fresh flesh", in the same way that heterosexuals lust after adolescent girls in cheerleader uniforms. I haven't seen statistics on it, but it seems obvious that most of the abusers are priests who are the modernist, "sexually-liberated" type. The type that wants the Church to OK contraception, masturbation, homosexuality, divorce, and all the rest. A faithful Catholic would not become a priest if he had homosexual desires, since canon law forbids homosexuals (whether active or not) to be priests. Again, common sense tells one that a typical abuser reads trendy things about sexuality. It is almost impossible to imagine a priest devoted to and consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (for example) to be doing this stuff. And if such a traditionalist priest were caught abusing minors, you can bet your last dollar that the secular press as well as the modernist Catholics would put that on the front page.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Binary_Sunset Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 8/20/05 9:38am Subject: RE: Catholicism - Date Edited: 8/20/05 9:40am (1 edits total) Edited By: Binary_Sunset
	Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon posted: Vatican II allowed services to be conducted in native languages, which made it much easier for the average Joe to understand what was going on. The greater comprehension diminished the mystical aura that the religion had. This understanding of what the church was actually saying, combined with the increased prevalence of secular reasoning in society, is what I think caused the decrease in church memebership. As I see it, if someone is educated and reasonable enough, they will see through the folly of religion. Keeping the mass in Latin is a way of keeping the common man uninformed and ignorant, which seems to be the best way to keep religious enrollment high. This, I think, is nearly the reverse of the truth. The Catholic Church has long had a reputation for encouraging scholarship. The Church, for example, invented the modern university system in Europe. The various religious orders ran schools. Entire generations of Catholics were raised in Catholic schools in which they learned, in detail, the teachings of the Church. And during Mass, the typical missal had Latin on the left-hand page and English on the right-hand page. Further, most of the children in Catholic schools had at least some knowledge of Latin, so they at least knew enough to be able to follow along in the Latin/English missals. With the advent of Vatican II, most Catholic schools closed their doors. The remaining ones downplayed the theology and replaced nuns and priests with laymen, often not even Catholic. Further, the level of religious instruction at Catholic Sunday schools today is appalling. "Is God more like a radio or a soap bubble?" "If you could be any superhero you liked, which would it be and why?" "How does X make you feel?" Etc. Ad nauseum. In the U. S. at least, Catholics (as a whole) are more abyssmally ignorant of the Faith than they ever have been. So of course people stop going to Church. The services are ugly and the parishioners are ignorant. Who'd want to put up with that?
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Binary_Sunset Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 8/20/05 9:55am Subject: RE: Catholicism - Date Edited: 8/20/05 10:01am (2 edits total) Edited By: Binary_Sunset
	Darth_Overlord posted: It also isn't possible to simply dispose of the Novus Ordo rite as if it never existed. As then-Cardinal Ratzinger said, "If by ‘restoration’ is meant a turning back, no restoration of such a kind is possible. The Church moves forward toward the consummation of history, she looks ahead to the Lord who is coming. No, there is no going back, nor is it possible to go back." (Spirit of the Liturgy)... Also, might I suggest, Binary_Sunset, that your problems with Vatican II are not against the Council itself, but the so-called "Spirit of Vatican II" (what I like to call the "Poltergeist of Vatican II"). A lot of things are done in the name of Vatican II that are contrary to it or simply not there. For example, "The use of Latin is to be preserved in the Latin rites." (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy). Nowhere does it say that the Tabernacle should be removed from the center of the church, placed in a broom closet, and locked up in something that could be mistaken for minimalist sculpture rather than the Dwellingplace of the Lord. It also forbids "creativity" on the part of anyone when it comes to the liturgy, "Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See, and, as laws may determine, on the bishop[...]Therefore no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority." (Ibid.) If I were under the impression that what people claim Vatican II said to do Vatican II said to do, I'd be right with you. But if you actually read the documents, you may be pleasantly surprised. Again, quoting the Pope,"Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has been clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly also the two previous councils. And that also applies to the so-called ‘progressivism,’ at least in its extreme forms…It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I and against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation" (Ratzinger Report) Now, wherever orthodoxy exists, that's where the Church prospers most... Actually, that's a good example of how infallibility works by protecting the deposit of faith while not infringing on free will. Paul VI personally didn't know what to make of it, but when guided by the Holy Spirit, the answer was definitively "no" to artifical contraceptives. I disagree with Ratzinger there. It is certainly possible to go back. The Pope could make that change in a day. He could simply order all Latin Rite bishops and priests to perform the Tridentine Mass exclusively. I don't expect Benedict XVI to do that, though, for obvious reasons. But perhaps the next Pope. (This reminds me of a comment written by G. K. Chesterton: He said that we certainly can and do "turn back the clock". We do it every year when Daylight Savings Time ends.) Granted that the implementation of Vatican II is worse than the Vatican II documents themselves. But the Vatican II documents are full of inexact phraseology and ambiguous passages. Nonsense and heresy flourish in the presence of ambiguity. Compare the wordy and effusive Vatican II documents with the concise precision of most of the previous Ecumenical Councils. Ratzinger wrote: "It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I and against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation." My response: Vatican II has the same infallibility as the other 20 Ecumenical Councils: It was prevented from dogmatically teaching theological or moral error. That's it. A council (like a Pope) is not guaranteed to teach the truth. Neither is it guaranteed to be wise. There are a multitude of Popes who made no dogmatic pronouncements during their pontificates. In their cases, papal infallibility operated by essentially "shutting them up". The same thing with Vatican II. In the hundreds and hundreds of pages of the Vatican II documents, not a single new dogmatic definition was made. Not a single new anathema was pronounced. All Vatican II did was to restate some of the Church's teachings in vague terminology, plus it gave pastoral advice. The last 40 years have shown how bad that advice was. The Church would do well to simply ignore Vatican II. Indeed, Pope St. Gregory the Great said that the 5th Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II) should be ignored since it accomplished nothing other than to introduce confusion into the Church. In short, the Catholic Church has had some bad infallible Popes and some bad infallible Ecumenical Councils. Just because a Pope is a Pope does not mean he's a good Pope. Just because an Ecumenical Council is an Ecumenical Council does not mean it's a good Ecumenical Council. Finally, that's a very good point you made about the confused Pope Paul VI (perhaps my most unfavorite Pope) being prevented from teaching error regarding contraception.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Registered: Dec '00	Date Posted: 8/20/05 9:17pm Subject: RE: Catholicism
	The Catholic Church has long had a reputation for encouraging scholarship. The Jesuits, yes. The rest of the Church, not so much. Until the Renaissance, the Church's main function was simply to keep the aristocracy in power. Peasants could accept the horrible living conditions of feudalism as long as the Church had them convinced of a heavenly afterlife that awaited them in return for keeping their noses in the dirt and following the commands of their "betters". Any good history book will give you a fair account of the political wranglings that dealt with the whole issue of the "Holy Roman Emperor" and other such nonsense. If people have a good comprehension of the reality of their religion, then they can go ahead and claim their faith. But the majority of people obey religion simply because that is what they have been raised to say they believe, and their ignorance keeps the Church in power.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth_Overlord Registered: Jul '01	Date Posted: 8/21/05 11:37pm Subject: RE: Catholicism
	I disagree with Ratzinger there. It is certainly possible to go back. The Pope could make that change in a day. He could simply order all Latin Rite bishops and priests to perform the Tridentine Mass exclusively. I don't expect Benedict XVI to do that, though, for obvious reasons. But perhaps the next Pope. (This reminds me of a comment written by G. K. Chesterton: He said that we certainly can and do "turn back the clock". We do it every year when Daylight Savings Time ends.) Gotta love Chesterton! I probably should have continued a bit longer with his quote, "But if by restoration we understand the search for a new balance after the exaggerations of an indiscriminate opening to the world, after the overly positive interpretations of an agnostic and atheistic world, well, then a restoration understood in this sense (a newly found balance of orientations and values within the Catholic totality) is altogether desirable and, for that matter, is already in operation in the Church. In this sense it can be said that the first phase after Vatican II has come to a close." The thing is Vatican II must have in some way Providentially moved the Church forward. Now this very well could be said about the Reformation, in that it was necessary to bring about the Counter-Reformation, so it may not always be in itself a positive thing. The reformers said, "The church has become corrupt, so we must go back," while the counter-reformers said, "the church has become corrupt, so we must move forward." My concern is that the mentality that "we must go back to pre-Vatican II" is a form of the same mentality that the reformers had, what Ratzinger later in the book calls "the romantic archaeologism of certain professors of liturgy who would throw out everything done after Gregory the Great as being an excrescence and a sign of decadence. For them, the criterion of liturgical renewal was not "What ought to be done today?" but "What was it like then?" They forget that the Church is living and that her liturgy cannot be frozen at the stage reached in the city of Rome prior to the onset of the Middle Ages." Since you mention Chesterton, I am reminded of another quote of his, "The reformer is always right about what is wrong. He is generally wrong about what is right." Granted that the implementation of Vatican II is worse than the Vatican II documents themselves. But the Vatican II documents are full of inexact phraseology and ambiguous passages. Nonsense and heresy flourish in the presence of ambiguity. Compare the wordy and effusive Vatican II documents with the concise precision of most of the previous Ecumenical Councils. Ratzinger wrote: "It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I and against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation." My response: Vatican II has the same infallibility as the other 20 Ecumenical Councils: It was prevented from dogmatically teaching theological or moral error. That's it. A council (like a Pope) is not guaranteed to teach the truth. Neither is it guaranteed to be wise. There are a multitude of Popes who made no dogmatic pronouncements during their pontificates. In their cases, papal infallibility operated by essentially "shutting them up". The same thing with Vatican II. In the hundreds and hundreds of pages of the Vatican II documents, not a single new dogmatic definition was made. Not a single new anathema was pronounced. All Vatican II did was to restate some of the Church's teachings in vague terminology, plus it gave pastoral advice. The last 40 years have shown how bad that advice was. The Church would do well to simply ignore Vatican II. Indeed, Pope St. Gregory the Great said that the 5th Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II) should be ignored since it accomplished nothing other than to introduce confusion into the Church. In short, the Catholic Church has had some bad infallible Popes and some bad infallible Ecumenical Councils. Just because a Pope is a Pope does not mean he's a good Pope. Just because an Ecumenical Council is an Ecumenical Council does not mean it's a good Ecumenical Council. I agree with you maybe 95%. I've privately wondered whether the vagueness has to do with preventing an erroneous statement from being presented. Since what matters is what actually comes out when pen comes to paper, I insist on the letter of the council being followed. I don't know if Vatican II is right, but I do know that it is not wrong. I can't seem to verify what you said about St. Gregory the Great. It sounds like it was a private correspondence (which would make the situation similar to Paul VI and contraception). Also, the Church has apparently not ignored the 5th Ecumenical Council since she cites it in the catechism several times. Having recently graduated from Catholic schools myself, I have to wholeheartedly agree about what you say about Catholic education these days. In my experience, their answer to the decreased enrollment is to raise tuition and go even further off the deep end in heterodoxy (and BTW it’s actually the remaining priests and religious that are most problematic, generally speaking). I could go on for hours complaining about it. But in spite of that, there is still something to be said about obedience. The fourth commandment implies a respect of all those that are in positions in authority. That includes the clergy. The Novus Ordo Rite has to be valid (an ecumenical council couldn’t make that big of an error), and it is currently licit. You don’t have to like it, you don’t have to agree with it, and you never have to go to one (assuming you can find a legitimate Tridentine Mass near you) and still be a full-fledged Catholic. You do have to affirm its validity out of faith and accept its licitness out of obedience. The same goes for Vatican II. You must affirm that Vatican II is free from error (just as you previously did) but beyond that, you don’t have to agree, but continue to follow it out of obedience. Some of my friends and I don’t care for the bishop of our diocese, and the auxiliary bishop is even worse. Despite this, however, we obey him in whatever he legitimately has the authority to instruct us. The only time it is moral to be disobedient is if what you’re being ordered to do is objectively immoral. For it to be objectively immoral, it can’t be based on simply a “gut feeling,” but has to be based on the authority of the Magisterium and the natural law. So if the bishop specifically said to spread a heresy, for example, that should not be obeyed. But since Vatican II is an Ecumenical Council, and it is impossible for an Ecumenical Council to teach heresy, there is no justification in disobeying the letter of Vatican II. In conclusion, based on what you’ve said here, I don’t understand in what way you are NOT Catholic. You seem to already accept all her dogmatic teachings; it seems illogical to not want to become a member of the Church over discipline/canon issues. Meanwhile pray that God’s will be done. If it is God’s will, what you ask will happen; it may not happen according to your timetable, but it will happen. But be prepared to accept that it may possibly not be God’s will as well, as none of us can be personally certain as to what God’s will is. -----signature----- "The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." -G.K. Chesterton
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Binary_Sunset Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 8/22/05 3:28pm Subject: RE: Catholicism - Date Edited: 8/22/05 3:57pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Binary_Sunset
	Darth_Overlord posted: My concern is that the mentality that "we must go back to pre-Vatican II" is a form of the same mentality that the reformers had, what Ratzinger later in the book calls "the romantic archaeologism of certain professors of liturgy who would throw out everything done after Gregory the Great as being an excrescence and a sign of decadence. For them, the criterion of liturgical renewal was not "What ought to be done today?" but "What was it like then?" They forget that the Church is living and that her liturgy cannot be frozen at the stage reached in the city of Rome prior to the onset of the Middle Ages." If you look at the development of the Tridentine Liturgy from the earliest centuries up through the 20th, you'll notice that it was always a gradual, harmonious change. Nobody went to Mass one Sunday only to be confronted by a liturgy radically different from last Sunday's Mass. But that is what happened in the late 1960s with the Novus Ordo. In one of his letters in 1967, J. R. R. Tolkien mentioned that the Mass used to be a "refuge" but now felt like a "trap". In fact, since the Tridentine Mass has never been abolished and has continued in use through today, a more widespread use of the Tridentine Mass is not an example of "going back". I'd simply like to see its use so widespread in the Latin Rite that nobody performs a Novus Ordo Mass. If anything, I think the Novus Ordo Mass is more the example of liturgical archaeology. If you remember, the early 20th century was the hey-day of liturgical studies, and many such students of the liturgy condescendingly described many developments of the liturgy as "corruptions". The Novus Ordo feels like a stripped-down liturgy, "purified" of its "corruptions", based on the studies of the liturgical commissions, then utterly ruined in practice by air-headed morons. The Tridentine Liturgy, however, joyfully has a multitude of "excrescences" picked-up through the centuries. Darth_Overlord posted: I can't seem to verify what you said about St. Gregory the Great. It sounds like it was a private correspondence (which would make the situation similar to Paul VI and contraception). Also, the Church has apparently not ignored the 5th Ecumenical Council since she cites it in the catechism several times. I'm pretty sure I read about this in The Great Facade: Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church by Christopher Ferrara and Thomas Woods. IIRC, it was indeed in private correspondence that St. Gregory the Great counselled some to pretend that Constantinople II never happened. Granted that Constantinople II did issue some anathemas, which have been of lasting value. But Vatican II issued precisely nothing in the way of new dogmatic definitions or anathemas. After each previous Ecumenical Council, a Catholic had a bit more precision in his faith than before the council. But Vatican II did not say anything new. It simply talked a lot. Perhaps, as you say, this was Providence's way of preventing the council from teaching error. Darth_Overlord posted: But in spite of that, there is still something to be said about obedience. The fourth commandment implies a respect of all those that are in positions in authority. That includes the clergy. The Novus Ordo Rite has to be valid (an ecumenical council couldn’t make that big of an error), and it is currently licit. You don’t have to like it, you don’t have to agree with it, and you never have to go to one (assuming you can find a legitimate Tridentine Mass near you) and still be a full-fledged Catholic. You do have to affirm its validity out of faith and accept its licitness out of obedience. The same goes for Vatican II. You must affirm that Vatican II is free from error (just as you previously did) but beyond that, you don’t have to agree, but continue to follow it out of obedience. Some of my friends and I don’t care for the bishop of our diocese, and the auxiliary bishop is even worse. Despite this, however, we obey him in whatever he legitimately has the authority to instruct us. The only time it is moral to be disobedient is if what you’re being ordered to do is objectively immoral. For it to be objectively immoral, it can’t be based on simply a “gut feeling,” but has to be based on the authority of the Magisterium and the natural law. So if the bishop specifically said to spread a heresy, for example, that should not be obeyed. But since Vatican II is an Ecumenical Council, and it is impossible for an Ecumenical Council to teach heresy, there is no justification in disobeying the letter of Vatican II. But, as far as I can tell, Vatican II did not issue any commands. All the other councils said "Here is a list of things you must believe" and/or "Here is a list of things you must not believe". But Vatican II did neither. It justed...talked. And what was said was so vague and wordy that just about anything can be hung on it and justified as the "spirit of Vatican II". That's why I think the best thing to do is just to ignore it. Granted that the Novus Ordo is valid, but I think it an objectively inferior rite to the Tridentine. To give an extreme example, Rome could change the Novus Ordo so that Mass was 10 seconds long: A priest with some bread and wine, saying "This is My body. This is My blood." But surely nobody would want the Mass stripped down like that, regardless of its validity. I think the only areas of obedience surrounding Vatican II is that a Catholic must hold it to have been free from dogmatic error, and that the Novus Ordo is valid. Darth_Overlord posted: In conclusion, based on what you’ve said here, I don’t understand in what way you are NOT Catholic. You seem to already accept all her dogmatic teachings; it seems illogical to not want to become a member of the Church over discipline/canon issues. Meanwhile pray that God’s will be done. If it is God’s will, what you ask will happen; it may not happen according to your timetable, but it will happen. But be prepared to accept that it may possibly not be God’s will as well, as none of us can be personally certain as to what God’s will is. Well, I'm speaking provisionally in this thread. I think there are a LOT of strong arguments for Catholicism, and a big part of my mind is convinced, but a chunk is unconvinced. I will not become a Catholic until all of my doubts that are of any consequence have been satisfied. The fastest way to convince me is for the Pope and the bishops to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart, and then as a result of such a consecration have Russia convert to Catholicism. That would nail it for me. To me, it seems that the most convincing miracle in history is the dancing of the sun at Fatima in 1917. The promised conversion of Russia as a result of the demanded consecration would be enough to get me in my car and to drive to the nearest Catholic Church to join. Also, Darth Overlord, I hope I'm not coming across as too harsh regarding Vatican II. I greatly respect the Catholic Church and you have shown yourself to be a very intelligent, learned, and respectable Catholic. My disagreements with you are of the friendliest sort. EDIT: I'm reminded of my favorite Novus Ordo story. I think it was in Why Catholics Can't Sing : The Culture of Catholicism and the Triumph of Bad Taste by Thomas Day. An elderly woman was attending a Novus Ordo Mass in the late 60s/early 70s. She was piously praying her rosary. During the exchange of peace, a young man next to her held out his hand to shake hers, saying, "Peace be with you." She looked at his hand as though it were leprous, and without ceasing to pray her rosary, said, "I don't believe in that ****."
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
missydawg319 Registered: Apr '05	Date Posted: 8/22/05 5:55pm Subject: RE: Catholicism
	I am overjoyed that the World Youth Day was so successful. I believe that set a great example for all religions to follow, The Pope showed respect, dignity, integrety, humor, concern, and most importantly his upmost appreciation to God and the youth of the world. Hurray for a job well done! -----signature----- The Dawg319
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
missydawg319 Registered: Apr '05	Date Posted: 8/22/05 6:04pm Subject: RE: Catholicism
	I can't believe some of the posts above. How insulting and rude it is to put down a whole faith community based on the actions of a few. For starters, unless you are Catholic and involved with the church you have no idea how much action has been taken to prevent further child issues, to help families of the injured, etc. The church has started the "Protecting God's Children" program, etc. I think all of the negative comments can be sumed up by saying foe every Ying there is a Yang. Also, think about this. Look at what the other religions do. God said in his word that following him would not be easy. -----signature----- The Dawg319
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
hawk Registered: May '00	Date Posted: 8/22/05 6:46pm Subject: RE: Catholicism
	Often we assume acts occur more than they really do because they are given more publicity. -----signature----- I love you, lonely Dewback on the ridge.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jediflyer Registered: Dec '01	Date Posted: 8/22/05 7:33pm Subject: RE: Catholicism
	How insulting and rude it is to put down a whole faith community based on the actions of a few. You should have seen the repeat episode of South Park that aired last night! -----signature----- As long as the differences and diversities of mankind exist, democracy must allow for compromise, for accommodation, and for the recognition of differences. -Eugene McCarthy There are no dialogues, only intersecting monologues -Mark Twain
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Ton_G Registered: Aug '02	Date Posted: 8/23/05 12:20am Subject: RE: Catholicism - Date Edited: 8/23/05 12:30am (1 edits total) Edited By: Ton_G
	This weekend I went to a Ukrainian Orthodox Mass, (what they call the Divine Liturgy [and also fulfilled my Catholic Sunday obligation of course]). It was wonderful and absolutely trancendant. It was in Ukrainian for the most part, a little english here and there. I couldn't understand what was being said without the translation book, and I didn't use it too much. What I could understand was what was happening. The language difference was inconcequential, in fact, the language barrier was not a barrier at all, rather, it added to the liturgy, moving from the focus from the words which are spoken to the actual events which are taking place. The liturgy is a language in itself, the Iconostasis, the icons, the complete reverence for the Real Presence. I've always been a supporter of the Tridentine Mass and other traditional rites, (though I cannot recall the last time I went to a Tridentine Mass, they are not availible in my area), not simply for their aesthetics, but also their depth of symbolism, theological consistancy and the trancendance of the liturgy. Attending this Mass completely put the nail in the coffin for the Novus Ordo. Where I go (the local Basilica), the Novus Ordo is done very well, in fact, my father is the director of music and organist and I sing in the choir. We have chant, polyphony, an excellent organist and quite possibly the best Roman Catholic choir in Canada. Yet even at this, the Novus Ordo is lacking in a very huge way. My father and I both attended this Byzantine Mass and agreed that the Novus Ordo, even as far as we go with good music, is, aside from the concecration, spiratually impotent. While some say that the church has a multiplicity of rites (which is true), the Novus Ordo is not decended from these rites. It is a fabrication, and lacks the spirit which all of the traditional hold dear. In brief, I'm absolutely sick of the Novus Ordo. There is so much more, and yet it is kept away. Not only in liturgy, but in philosophy/theology and parish life. It is as if there is a cloud trying to obsucre God's glory. We, as Catholics, have lost so much. It is truly heartbraking. End rant. EDIT: As to Ratzingers statement, yes, we must go forward- towards truth. We may not be able to restore 1962, but we can bring the church back to its truth. It will take time and maybe even cause a schism, but it will happen. As Paul VI said, the church is enagaged in a process of self-destruction, and quoting Benedict XVI, the ship is sinking. We have no choice if we are to move forward. There is no middle ground, as Newman said, either be a Catholic or an Athiest. We cannot be Christians and throw out Catholocism. End EDIT Rant. -----signature----- /___/___/___///////////////////////////___/___///// /////___/////___/___////__//____////___//////////// ////___/////__////___////___//___////___/___/////// ///___/////___/___///____ //__////___/___///////
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

« 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 » - Previous | Next | Reload

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »