Legacy of Vatican II

gimmebroadband

An Excellent article on the late Archbishop of Cashel and Emly, Thomas Morris. He made some startling and strong claims in regards to Vatican II. It was contemplated that Latin would continue to be the main language of the Liturgy, and that there could be limited or occasional use of the vernacular.

Then there was the matter of altars facing the people, it was only to be permitted and not obigatory. It was not envisaged that it would become as common as they have. There was also no communion in the hand.

more.....

Doc Farrell

Very interesting, quite funny in places.
'Communion in the hand, that was grasped at by the nuns and it spread from them.'

Onesimus

All I can say is that it was giving them permission to face the people that caused a lot of confusion. So the modernists decided they would have a feast day when they heard they could face the people. They knew that some parishes would be facing God and some facing the people and that this would cause confusion so they stuck their ore in and got everyone to face the people and there is nothing we can do about it now because they have ''permission''.

homer911

Facing God??

God is everywhere

Following this logic you would be getting out your compass and pointing to ....? well, where?

Onesimus

homer911 wrote: »

Facing God??

God is everywhere

Following this logic you would be getting out your compass and pointing to ....? well, where?

Catholics believe in the Divine presence of Christ present in the Eucharist. There is a difference between Christs Divine presence and his omnipresence which is all around us.

Now homer I hope you are not going to turn/use this thread into one of your protestant Vs Catholic doctrine threads because there is already a thread provided for that as far as I know. And you and I know very well that you are aware of Catholic beliefs in this area and that your deciding to rattle the hornets nest a bit is out of line in this thread.

Doc Farrell

Onesimus wrote: »

All I can say is that it was giving them permission to face the people that caused a lot of confusion. So the modernists decided they would have a feast day when they heard they could face the people. They knew that some parishes would be facing God and some facing the people and that this would cause confusion so they stuck their ore in and got everyone to face the people and there is nothing we can do about it now because they have ''permission''.

I don't know why you would write something like this and not expect to get called out on it. The 'they' you are talking about are the vast majority of both lay and clergy. As for the idea that God is not there in people, well, maybe you didn't meant it that way.

Onesimus

Doc Farrell wrote: »

I don't know why you would write something like this and not expect to get called out on it. The 'they' you are talking about are the vast majority of both lay and clergy. As for the idea that God is not there in people, well, maybe you didn't meant it that way.

Thanks Doc and I am always open to criticism and different points of view.

I never meant that God is not in the people..no... But there is a difference between facing Gods Divine presence and facing his presence in someone else.

Which presence would you rather turn to when celebrating the Mass?

Doc Farrell

It's all around us baby! But I would say that since the Jesuits phrase is 'God in all things' and I read all their books. I visited a mass rock at the end of the Beara penninsula and that wet slab of rock with its history and view! It knocked my socks off!

Onesimus

Doc Farrell wrote: »

It's all around us baby! But I would say that since the Jesuits phrase is 'God in all things' and I read all their books. I visited a mass rock at the end of the Beara penninsula and that wet slab of rock with its history and view! It knocked my socks off!

Yeah I love the Jesuits too. I also have a huge liking to Anthony De Mello but as he even said not everything he says should be swallowed whole.

And yes the Jesuits qoute of ''God in all things'' is great and is very true but I am confident the Jesuits are also of the understanding that there is a difference of Gods presence in a Rose compared to his Divine presence in the Eucharist.

I'm glad you had a great experience. I feel God's presence every now and again should I be worthy of this grace to do so. and when I meet people I am reminded of St.Benedicts qoute that when we open the door to a person we open the door to Christ, we see Christ.

I find that to be an eye opener when I meet anyone.

prinz

Doc Farrell wrote: »

It's all around us baby! But I would say that since the Jesuits phrase is 'God in all things' and I read all their books. I visited a mass rock at the end of the Beara penninsula and that wet slab of rock with its history and view! It knocked my socks off!

Off topic but..

If you're down that way again there's a Buddhist retreat centre in Gougane Barra with one of the best views in the entire country IMO, it's built right onto a cliff, with a meditation room where one side is all glass and from one side to the other all you can see is the empty sea stretching to the horizon.

Benny_Cake

I'd actually think that priests facing the congregation is much preferable, the Mass is a communal celebration after all. But I do think that they went too far in remodelling some of the altars, a lot of heritage was lost.

Brer Fox

I'd give the Jesuits a wide berth.

A lot of strange things which took place after the Second Vatican Council were based on falsehoods by clerics who knew nobody knew any different. Information wasn't so easily obtained back then. Of course, that's all changed now, following the invention of the interweb.

The early Christians faced east during their Masses. It is most unfortunate that this practise has been purged from the new Mass almost everywhere.

Doc Farrell

Brer Fox wrote: »

I'd give the Jesuits a wide berth.

A lot of strange things which took place after the Second Vatican Council were based on falsehoods by clerics who knew nobody knew any different. Information wasn't so easily obtained back then. Of course, that's all changed now, following the invention of the interweb.

Nonsense.
If you have a problem with the Jesuits take it up with Archbishop Martin who will be celebrating the Eucharist in the Jesuit church of St Francis Xavier in Gardiner Street at 11am on Sunday May 6th. At this mass a prayer book especially published for the Eucharist Congress called 'Communion with Christ and with one another' will be launched. Written by Fr Donal Neary SJ, the parish priest and a Jesuit.
If you honestly think that you can open an account to make vague conspiracy theory posts about the Society of Jesus without getting your wrist slapped you are living in a world of delusion.
No doubt you have a problem with Archbishop Martin too.

ISAW

prinz wrote: »

Off topic but..

If you're down that way again there's a Buddhist retreat centre in Gougane Barra with one of the best views in the entire country IMO, it's built right onto a cliff, with a meditation room where one side is all glass and from one side to the other all you can see is the empty sea stretching to the horizon.

Oh, on Inishcarra and Gougane Barra,
on Macroom and on Omagh Town
God poured out air of a fragrance rare
that gained them high renown

ISAW

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'd actually think that priests facing the congregation is much preferable, the Mass is a communal celebration after all. But I do think that they went too far in remodelling some of the altars, a lot of heritage was lost.

Off topic but only yesterday i realised the connection with Roman Catholic priests and Fr. Benny Cake. ... My little horse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Father_Ted_characters#Unseen_priests
so you are midge Ure?

Benny_Cake

ISAW wrote: »

Off topic but only yesterday i realised the connection with Roman Catholic priests and Fr. Benny Cake. ... My little horse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Father_Ted_characters#Unseen_priests
so you are midge Ure?

Well spotted! Had I thought of it at the time I would have named myself after Fr.Clint Power!

Onesimus

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'd actually think that priests facing the congregation is much preferable, the Mass is a communal celebration after all. But I do think that they went too far in remodelling some of the altars, a lot of heritage was lost.

I hear ( or read lol ) what your saying but its a communal celebration in which we all come together to look at and worship Christ, not to look at one another. It doesnt make theological sense but its just my opinion I could be wrong but thats the way I and many others see it I guess.

Cossax

ISAW wrote: »

Off topic but only yesterday i realised the connection with Roman Catholic priests and Fr. Benny Cake. ... My little horse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Father_Ted_characters#Unseen_priests
so you are midge Ure?

Watching Father Ted on C4 at some early hour this morning?

tommy2bad

Onesimus wrote: »

I hear ( or read lol ) what your saying but its a communal celebration in which we all come together to look at and worship Christ, not to look at one another. It doesnt make theological sense but its just my opinion I could be wrong but thats the way I and many others see it I guess.

Kinda with you on this Onesimus, I think the priest facing the congregation is wrong in a way. Kinda because I also see the need for him to face the people too. Perhaps their should have been some turning around involved.
Oh and we literally dumped some lovely alters to be replaced with awful efforts.

lmaopml

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'd actually think that priests facing the congregation is much preferable, the Mass is a communal celebration after all. But I do think that they went too far in remodelling some of the altars, a lot of heritage was lost.

I'm trying to understand this 'attachment' to pre Vatican II Liturgy, and must admit I have often struggled to do so, because I don't see it as anymore a 'golden' age for Christ than this very day is - as a child of Vatican II, I'm trying to understand though....

I think I fall somewhere in between - with a totally awestruck admiration for the miraculous presence of God in the Eucharist, how totally special it is to have the actual presence of God in our Church I kind of understand the return to what may have seemed as both Priest and Congregation giving communal praise together to the focal point of the Mass - God himself - as opposed to the 'Priest' which perhaps some think diluted that?

However, I think the 'fruits' of the much disputed Vatican II have yet to reach their pinacle in God's own time and no less - and I have no doubt they will.

I'm beginning to respect the idea of why people think the Liturgy is most most important (which it is) and also balance it with a healthy respect for whom it actually focuses on - Jesus Christ, the death and resurrection and salvation story.

I don't think the Liturgy has the power to change peoples hearts, only Christians now have the power to live like Christ and be witnesses for him - he works through them, with them, and in them too...so I think it's multi layered, moreso than a problem that anybody may see in the Liturgy if you know what I mean?? I'm still coming to terms with my fellow Catholics who are pro Vatican II and grumble about Vatican II - but there is something I guess to everybodies viewpoint worth listening to...

The Brigadier

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'd actually think that priests facing the congregation is much preferable, the Mass is a communal celebration after all. But I do think that they went too far in remodelling some of the altars, a lot of heritage was lost.

In the missal the prefered way to celebate Mass is ad orientem (to the east) rather than ad populum (to the people)

I suppose the thing to consider on this is whether you think the Mass is supposed to glorify God or the people?

Our priest says mass ad orientem as well as many other priests - it certainly isn't as rare as people make out.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Kinda with you on this Onesimus, I think the priest facing the congregation is wrong in a way. Kinda because I also see the need for him to face the people too. Perhaps their should have been some turning around involved.
Oh and we literally dumped some lovely alters to be replaced with awful efforts.

Within the missal there are numerous rubrics instructing the priest to "turn to the people"

My own feeling is that at Mass the priest leads the people in prayer to God. If someone was leading an expedition they would lead from the front, facing the same way as everyone else. It is all about having a shared direction.

The Brigadier

lmaopml wrote: »

I'm trying to understand this 'attachment' to pre Vatican II Liturgy, and must admit I have often struggled to do so, because I don't see it as anymore a 'golden' age for Christ than this very day is - as a child of Vatican II, I'm trying to understand though....

I have something of an attachment to pre Vatican II liturgy. I attend Mass in the extraordinary form when I can. (In fact my wife and I were even married in the EF)

I don't believe there is anything wrong with Vatican II though. Where I personally see the problem is that there have been many abuses of the liturgy brought about by Vatican II.

There are numerous examples of things that are permitted in the liturgy post Vatican II that have become the norm in some churches.

Communion in the hand : This was allowed post Vatican II but was never the preferred way to receive. You even had the situation where some Churches were forbidding the faithful to receive on the tongue. This required the Holy Father to come out and remind the Bishops that nobody could deny communion to anyone who wanted to receive on the tongue or on their knees.

Music : The text of the Mass is supposed to be sung at every Sunday Mass. What happens in many Churches is this is abandoned and some sort of modernist 'hymn' is sung instead. (This is an interesting article here) The General Instruction of the Roman Missal specifically points out that Gregorian Chant holds pride of place in the music of the Church. It also has this to say on the singing of Latin

General Instruction of the Roman Missal wrote:

"Since faithful from different countries come together ever more frequently, it is fitting that they know how to sing together at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, especially the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, set to the simpler melodies"

Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion : This is one of my personal biggies. First of all they are not called "Eucharistic Ministers". There is only one Eucharistic Minister - the priest. Secondly, they are EXTRA-ordinary. They are permitted to assist in the distribution of Holy Communion only in circumstances where the priest is unable to do so himself or where the numbers attending a certain mass would be so great as to delays being unduly long. At no parish should there be a rota. The use of Extraordinary Ministers should never be the ordinary.

I could go on for some time on this topic. There are so many things that are permitted post Vatican II that were never intended to be the norm. Too many have been offered an inch and taken a mile.

Onesimus

For the record I do not disagree with Vatican II at all. and I am not one of those SSPX traditionalists either who have abandoned the Church as well.

I just was thinking about it and giving my opinion that although we were given the choice to face God or the crowd I would preferably like us to face God. But in the end I go along with the Church whose sound orders I trust. If it was a problem the Pope would have said so by now I guess.

Keylem

What Went Wrong with Vatican II:

The Catholic Crisis Explained - Ralph M. McInerny.

A snippet from the linked article.

To accept Vatican II is to accept what the council says about the Magisterium and the Catholic's obligation to obey it.

As we will soon see, public and sustained rejection of the Magisterium and of this clear teaching of Vatican II - largely by dissenting theologians - has caused and sustained the crisis in the Church.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/SIPVAT2.HTM

Doc Farrell

The crisis in the church has not been caused by dissenting theologians but by a hierarchy which has simply failed to lead and to rid themselves of perverts.
Ordinary people are truly sick of this kind of legalistic cowardice and now want rid of the church from the schools and hospitals that they built.
Here is a more upbeat understanding of some of the religious women who have done so much for the church since Vatican II and now find themselves under investigation.
This is the last generation for many of these orders and the hierarchy have only themselves to blame.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DALx-eolC1FI%26feature%3Dyoutu.be&feature=youtu.be&v=ALx-eolC1FI&gl=IE

FergusODowd

Doc Farrell wrote: »

The crisis in the church has not been caused by dissenting theologians but by a hierarchy which has simply failed to lead and to rid themselves of perverts.

I would respectfully disagree.

The crisis in the church has been caused by dissenting theologians AND by a hierarchy which has simply failed to lead and to rid themselves of perverts.

In both cases the hierarachy have failed in their duty to ordinary Catholics.

Brer Fox

Doc Farrell wrote: »

The crisis in the church has not been caused by dissenting theologians but by a hierarchy which has simply failed to lead and to rid themselves of perverts.
Ordinary people are truly sick of this kind of legalistic cowardice and now want rid of the church from the schools and hospitals that they built.
Here is a more upbeat understanding of some of the religious women who have done so much for the church since Vatican II and now find themselves under investigation.
This is the last generation for many of these orders and the hierarchy have only themselves to blame.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DALx-eolC1FI%26feature%3Dyoutu.be&feature=youtu.be&v=ALx-eolC1FI&gl=IE

The liberal nuns in the US are a true disgrace. Among other things, they've been promoting abortion - some nuns even act as clinic escorts.

gimmebroadband

Speaking of nuns, It might come as a surprise to some that there is a difference between a sister and a nun!

lmaopml

The Brigadier wrote: »

I have something of an attachment to pre Vatican II liturgy. I attend Mass in the extraordinary form when I can. (In fact my wife and I were even married in the EF)

It meant something to you both; and that is lovely - you married and expressed vows to eachother in front of God; just like those afterwards make their vows, it meant something to you-

I don't believe there is anything wrong with Vatican II though. Where I personally see the problem is that there have been many abuses of the liturgy brought about by Vatican II.

Well, I prefer to look on this like providence - much like I see very many Catholics I agree/disagree with on a rather minute journey,:o but ultimately see as my brothers and sisters - much like any true Christians, and there are many, but that doesn't necessitate abandoning, one would have to be very full of pride, to abandon the 'Church' of Christ once truely known - it's Scriptural, it's alive today; very much so.

There are numerous examples of things that are permitted in the liturgy post Vatican II that have become the norm in some churches.

Communion in the hand : This was allowed post Vatican II but was never the preferred way to receive. You even had the situation where some Churches were forbidding the faithful to receive on the tongue. This required the Holy Father to come out and remind the Bishops that nobody could deny communion to anyone who wanted to receive on the tongue or on their knees.

I kind of understand what you are saying, I sometimes feel like falling on my face in gratitude; however, I do receive in my hands - I think it's hard to discern what goes on inside a person and know whether how one receives diminishes their understanding, or their adoration - afterall God chooses to impart grace when one seeks it -

Music : The text of the Mass is supposed to be sung at every Sunday Mass. What happens in many Churches is this is abandoned and some sort of modernist 'hymn' is sung instead. (This is an interesting article here) The General Instruction of the Roman Missal specifically points out that Gregorian Chant holds pride of place in the music of the Church. It also has this to say on the singing of Latin

Yes, and yes, a few of the Priests in my Parish 'sing' the liturgy ( and they have all been blessed with good voices too ) but they don't sing every line, mostly they 'proclaim' the Gospel from their socks upwards - I am lucky to have such wonderful Priests in my Parish, the turnout at Mass is testimony to it - it's not a 'show' - it's not 'stiff' - it's 'Worship' and all are invited - The Priests are the most hard working most humble God loving and charitable people I know of in my community - they actually set the standard.

Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion : This is one of my personal biggies. First of all they are not called "Eucharistic Ministers". There is only one Eucharistic Minister - the priest. Secondly, they are EXTRA-ordinary. They are permitted to assist in the distribution of Holy Communion only in circumstances where the priest is unable to do so himself or where the numbers attending a certain mass would be so great as to delays being unduly long. At no parish should there be a rota. The use of Extraordinary Ministers should never be the ordinary.

Sorry, I made a mistake in titles - Maybe I'm lucky that Extra Ordinary ministers are required in my Parish. Truly there is something happening here, the people are coming through the doors and looking sheepish but willing to take a seat and start - baby steps...

I could go on for some time on this topic. There are so many things that are permitted post Vatican II that were never intended to be the norm. Too many have been offered an inch and taken a mile.

Ach sure I know Brigadier, you wouldn't be on the Christianity forum if you didn't have an opinion That's why this forum is good, not harsh, not unwelcoming, but good - there is a community here of vast opinions/preferences, and sometimes prejudices, but as Christians we all are 'for' Christ and eachother - there is a community here.

Doc Farrell

Brer Fox wrote: »

Doc Farrell wrote: »

The crisis in the church has not been caused by dissenting theologians but by a hierarchy which has simply failed to lead and to rid themselves of perverts.
Ordinary people are truly sick of this kind of legalistic cowardice and now want rid of the church from the schools and hospitals that they built.
Here is a more upbeat understanding of some of the religious women who have done so much for the church since Vatican II and now find themselves under investigation.
This is the last generation for many of these orders and the hierarchy have only themselves to blame.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DALx-eolC1FI%26feature%3Dyoutu.be&feature=youtu.be&v=ALx-eolC1FI&gl=IE

The liberal nuns in the US are a true disgrace. Among other things, they've been promoting abortion - some nuns even act as clinic escorts.

Apologies for my tardy response, I've had a busy weekend. For my education, can you point out specifically which sister in the eight minute video posted above you consider a disgrace? Or is it just a general comment? Do you have information on one of the murdered nuns mentioned in the video which leads you to believe that she is a disgrace or are you specifically writing about someone not mentioned on the 8 minute video above? Thanks.

gimmebroadband

The Vatican is also reining in dissident nuns in the U.S. who have abused their positions as teachers of the faith for decades.

http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-062e.cfm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axVOA96tWOA

Doc Farrell

I would encourage posters to watch both videos so that they may, with further reading, discern which position is closer to the truth.
My own view, one I don't expect others to accept, is that the man with the large hair is a grandiose, ignorant and dangerous bigot who thankfully is only a layperson and is not, therefore, a spokesman for any group other than his own ego.

gimmebroadband

@ Doc Farrell. I happen to agree with Mr Voris. Michael Voris doesn't claim to support any group. He speaks within the confines of Orthodox Catholic Teaching. Also, the Vatican saw that these sisters were a huge problem in regards to Orthodox teaching of the faith, which resulted in calling them in to question about it!

Michael Voris tells it like it is and pulls no punches, unlike some dissenting clergy/sisters who like to pander to the masses. MV and those who adhere to Orthodox teaching of the faith get jeered, whereas dissenting clerics/sisters get cheered.

I would much rather listen MV over dissenting clerics and sisters anyday.


***********************************

Right to Preach the Gospel CCC (900)

Because of Baptism and Confirmation, they (the laity) have the right and duty (individually or grouped in associations) to preach the Gospel to all. Their activity in ecclesial communities is so important that pastors cannot be fully effective without them.

http://www.catholicity.com/catechism/the_laity.html

HamletOrHecuba

Doc Farrell wrote: »

I would encourage posters to watch both videos so that they may, with further reading, discern which position is closer to the truth.
My own view, one I don't expect others to accept, is that the man with the large hair is a grandiose, ignorant and dangerous bigot who thankfully is only a layperson and is not, therefore, a spokesman for any group other than his own ego.

St Maximus the Confessor was only a humble monk and he went against the world, including Pope Honorius, for which he ended up having his eyes and tongue cut out, for which also he is counted among the saints- no doubt in your eyes he would count as a fanatic upstart?

At the time of the Arian crisis the vast majority of the Hierarchy fell away and it was the laity that defended the faith and kept it alive with the forces of the world ranged against them on every side- no doubt they were dangerous bigots too. Sometimes it is the duty of Christians to not only go against but to hate and avoid validly elected Bishops if they are in rebellion against God.

What you seem to be advocating is the worst type of clericalism. It is the duty of all Christians to the defend the truth.

Doc Farrell

Look, I happen to know Brothers and Sisters who don't look like monks and nuns and I know some that do. All of them devote their lives to helping others.
They are all considerably better Christians than anyone who posts online here.
The only reason I post here is to balance some of the crazy reactionary lazy nonsense that some seem to spew out here in the name of Catholicism and Christianity. If I took their opinions seriously I would have little hope for the future.
Fortunately the crazy posts online here simply don't represent the opinions of ordinary moderate Christians so I don't have to take the stuff seriously.

I know sisters who have devoted their lives to the homeless, to chronic alcoholics, to orphaned children. I know them. I also know brothers who help thousands every year and receive no media attention for it.

That is why I can say without reservation that the guy with the crazy hair who likes to blast sisters because they don't wear habits, is an absolute disgrace and he has no idea of the sacrifices that these women have made.

Anyone sane and sensible is welcome to look at the video I posted that featured many of the nuns who were murdered for working with the poor.

Anyway thankfully most ordinary people on boards avoid the Christianity forum as they know that if they mention anything that isn't rooted in some weird 19th century version of infallible monarchism they will be accused of some nonsense.

I am personally involved in groups in the real world and only post here in the hope that anyone passing by will know that there is a moderate alternative to hate and reactionary pomp.
And if any posters honestly think that I can be bullied into silence by ridiculous accusations of heresy or whatever pops into their heads then they really are fruity.
Perhaps boards really is a lost cause for moderate opinions, considering the Christianity forum is stuck between childish atheists who have no idea of how history works and catholics so extreme that they think that the last few popes are liberal secularists but I've been here for a few years and will continue to engage with moderate voices who happen to stumble by, God help them.

I would advise that bible bashing God botherers engage with a group in the real world who help people with troubles instead of posting extremist nonsense online.

Brer Fox

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Look, I happen to know Brothers and Sisters who don't look like monks and nuns and I know some that do. All of them devote their lives to helping others.
They are all considerably better Christians than anyone who posts online here.
The only reason I post here is to balance some of the crazy reactionary lazy nonsense that some seem to spew out here in the name of Catholicism and Christianity. If I took their opinions seriously I would have little hope for the future.
Fortunately the crazy posts online here simply don't represent the opinions of ordinary moderate Christians so I don't have to take the stuff seriously.

I know sisters who have devoted their lives to the homeless, to chronic alcoholics, to orphaned children. I know them. I also know brothers who help thousands every year and receive no media attention for it.

That is why I can say without reservation that the guy with the crazy hair who likes to blast sisters because they don't wear habits, is an absolute disgrace and he has no idea of the sacrifices that these women have made.

Anyone sane and sensible is welcome to look at the video I posted that featured many of the nuns who were murdered for working with the poor.

Anyway thankfully most ordinary people on boards avoid the Christianity forum as they know that if they mention anything that isn't rooted in some weird 19th century version of infallible monarchism they will be accused of some nonsense.

I am personally involved in groups in the real world and only post here in the hope that anyone passing by will know that there is a moderate alternative to hate and reactionary pomp.
And if any posters honestly think that I can be bullied into silence by ridiculous accusations of heresy or whatever pops into their heads then they really are fruity.
Perhaps boards really is a lost cause for moderate opinions, considering the Christianity forum is stuck between childish atheists who have no idea of how history works and catholics so extreme that they think that the last few popes are liberal secularists but I've been here for a few years and will continue to engage with moderate voices who happen to stumble by, God help them.

I would advise that bible bashing God botherers engage with a group in the real world who help people with troubles instead of posting extremist nonsense online.

Many of those nuns which the Vatican has taken to task are promoting abortion. There's nothing good about that and such nuns ought to be denounced on a regular basis.

Additionally, your use of the word reactionary makes me think that you might be a priest, or somebody who is a lot older than most of the posters here. It's just a hunch. Am I right?

gimmebroadband

It gets even worse, nuns are defending billionaire contraceptive campaigner Melinda Gates.

Gates recently told Newsweek that the nuns at the Ursuline Academy of Dallas, where she once attended school, were delighted to hear about her plans to initiate a global contraceptive campaign and contacted her to tell her: “We’re all for you. We know this is a difficult issue to speak on, but we absolutely believe that you’re living under Catholic values.

http://www.lifesite.net/news/exclusive-ursuline-nuns-defend-billionaire-contraceptive-campaigner-melinda

Catholic values, are they SERIOUS?? :eek:

lmaopml

I don't particularly like the way the presenter of the 'Vortex', Micheal comes across at all - I'm not drawn to him as a speaker. He's not somebody I would 'seek out' to listen to, but everybody likes different things and there's no harm in everybody being different but part of the same faith - it's not news that everybody has their own 'taste' or flavour or preference on their journey in faith closer to God.

I think that even if he has a point, and many times he might very well - it's sometimes lost in smarmy arrogance and amateur dramatics - not a Christ like quality imo.

If there were Nuns recommending 'Abortion' then heck they were wrong to do so - no need for him to add coal to the fire, they are being spoken to by the Vatican. We wait and see what happens, the story is only unfolding as we speak, and the media are all over it 'reading between the lines' and most likely adding some drama for effect...most likely too on the part of the Nuns and that of the Vatican in the breaking news.

Doc Farrell

Mr. Fox, I'm just an ex poker playing schmuck trying to find a quiet moderate version of Christianity. My earliest posts here were in the poker forum.
I agree that if individual sisters wish to defend abortion then they have to expect to be criticized by their orders.
However none of the nuns in the video I posts are pro abortion and also the tabloid elephant gun approach of Voris to attacking all nuns who do not dress in a habit is revolting.

I also do not have to defend my opinions against hamletorhecuba since he or she posted a holocaust denying sspx bishop as his or her personal hero.

To be honest, considering the thousands of cases of sex abuse that have been mishandled in America and Europe I simply can't understand how 'dissident theologians' can still be blamed for the fact, the reality, that the majority of baptized Catholics simply do not wish to have any interaction with churches.
Most ordinary Catholics don't give a damn about theology, they care about morality and the safety of their children and this loss of moral authority and the failure of child safety regulations lies directly with the bishops , not with theologians or 'secular' society.

lmaopml

I think most ordinary Catholics like to hear 'Good Theology' balanced with sound 'Morality', as opposed to not giving a damn The Good Theology is all around us doing what it always has done, led in all righteousness and with real Spirit and Heart, but sometimes the 'noise' can get in the way of seeing the vast majority - they're the ones who possess the pearl of great price, the best witnesses I think we blind ourselves to them sometimes in the name of a cause....either way, but they're there nonetheless.

HamletOrHecuba

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Fortunately the crazy posts online here simply don't represent the opinions of ordinary moderate Christians so I don't have to take the stuff seriously.

What value do the opinions of "ordinary moderate Christians" have? If they are in rebellion against God than none at all.

St Maximus the Confessor fought against his superiors and the vast bulk of ordinary moderate Christians for saying that Christ had two wills and that it was EVIL to say He had only one, how many "ordinary moderate Christians" today would care about such things? How many even so called conservatives would care about such things? Yet he did and risked his all for it and so his numbered among the saints.

Where does Christ call for moderation? Infact he clearly states that those who are neither hot or cold he will spit out of his mouth.

HamletOrHecuba

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Look, I happen to know Brothers and Sisters who don't look like monks and nuns and I know some that do. All of them devote their lives to helping others.
They are all considerably better Christians than anyone who posts online here.

Are you not committing the arch liberal sin of judging there? Well than of course its okay to judge Christians who believe who believe as Christians believed for centuries past, just as long as you dont judge sexual perverts, demon worshipers and especially not Popes and Bishops who are saints by the very reason of their office?

We are all facing death and judgement- helping people bodily in this world is nothing compared to helping save body and soul for eternity. The Church was founded in order to give men eternal salvation- that is its role. However much someone my help people's worldly needs if they leave out Eternity and its demands than they have NOTHING to do Christianity.

What the world needs is not more social workers but ascetic warriors.

HamletOrHecuba

Doc Farrell wrote: »

I also do not have to defend my opinions against hamletorhecuba since he or she posted a holocaust denying sspx bishop as his or her personal hero.

Now where is the logic there?

Someone expresses admiration for an erudite and pious man but because that man has expressed (bravely and for no personal gain) an opinion on one historical subject their opinions count for nothing?

Say what you want about that true son of St Alban and St Boniface- he has always tried to be immaculately logical and honest with both himself and the world. More than can be said for the Irish Hierarchy.

HamletOrHecuba

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Most ordinary Catholics don't give a damn about theology, they care about morality and the safety of their children and this loss of moral authority and the failure of child safety regulations lies directly with the bishops , not with theologians or 'secular' society.

Morality is based on Theology- undermine one and you undermine the other. First things should be put first.

tommy2bad

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Morality is based on Theology- undermine one and you undermine the other. First things should be put first.

??? How? aren't morality and theology are two separate things? Or do you consider morality to be only obedience? I'm confused wheres the love in this?

prinz

tommy2bad wrote: »

??? How? aren't morality and theology are two separate things??

Strictly speaking yes they are. However you won't get very far into Chrisitan theology before you come across Judaeo-Christian morality... sin being the obvious example. So they are inextricably linked.

I Heart Internet

The Brigadier wrote: »

I don't believe there is anything wrong with Vatican II though. Where I personally see the problem is that there have been many abuses of the liturgy brought about by Vatican II.

There are numerous examples of things that are permitted in the liturgy post Vatican II that have become the norm in some churches.

+1

(Althought I would say that the abuses were brought about by people's misunderstanding of Vatican II rather than Vatican II, or any of its outputs, itself)

Brer Fox

I Heart Internet wrote: »

+1

(Althought I would say that the abuses were brought about by people's misunderstanding of Vatican II rather than Vatican II, or any of its outputs, itself)

The committee who put together the New Rite of Mass admitted that they went well beyond their mandate and they were allowed to do so by Pope Paul VI. Most of the problems over the last forty years (like 90+%) have been caused by Modernists/liberals. It's basically all their fault.

gimmebroadband

Brer Fox wrote: »

The committee who put together the New Rite of Mass admitted that they went well beyond their mandate and they were allowed to do so by Pope Paul VI. Most of the problems over the last forty years (like 90+%) have been caused by Modernists/liberals. It's basically all their fault.

I 100% agree.

Inside the Church many liberal theologians regard some doctrines such as Hell as being unsuitable for the mentality of modern man and are infecting others with this view. They are quick to proclaim God's love and mercy, but not His justice.

Doc Farrell

Brer Fox wrote: »

The committee who put together the New Rite of Mass admitted that they went well beyond their mandate and they were allowed to do so by Pope Paul VI. Most of the problems over the last forty years (like 90+%) have been caused by Modernists/liberals. It's basically all their fault.

It gives me no pleasure at all to say that this post is the most disturbing of all posts I have read here. It's as if the moral and financial bankruptcy of the Catholics church never happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases_by_country

This is not naïvety. This is a willful refusal to look at the criminals inside an organisation in dire need of reform. If you really need to believe that liberals have caused the collapse ( that's if you accept that there has been a collapse) then at this stage, after 20 years of these corruption cases being exposed on front pages, there's nothing more that can be, or should be, said to convince you otherwise.

HamletOrHecuba

Brer Fox wrote: »

The committee who put together the New Rite of Mass admitted that they went well beyond their mandate and they were allowed to do so by Pope Paul VI. Most of the problems over the last forty years (like 90+%) have been caused by Modernists/liberals. It's basically all their fault.

I would distinguish between liberals and modernists mate- liberalism and likewise convservatism are often a matter of personal disposition, modernism is a matter of faith, St Basil the Great could be a called a liberal in the context of his time (especially when compared to an out and out zealot like St Athanasius) but his lot his firmly among the saints. What people call liberalism today is usually plain and simple heresy which prevents people from becoming saints and pulls them into the eternal fire.