OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 19, 2014, 04:05:07 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: SSPX Traditionalist leader is called to attend talks with Vatican officials  (Read 4159 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #45 on: August 31, 2011, 11:31:59 AM »



I can't recall a council where the Pope's interpretation, or even any interpretation, was needed.  The language was always straightforward and concise.  You know the council has issues when the documents must be studied by "theologians" to determine what its true meaning is.


Bingo.

And people forget that a certain theologian by the name of RATZINGER was highly critical of some of the Council documents. In fact, he described some parts of Gaudium et Spes as "downright Pelagian."

So, yes, I think the SSPX is quite in good company to express some reservations about the Council, which they have been doing with Roman theologians for the past several years.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #46 on: August 31, 2011, 11:43:09 AM »

And, Robb, the Council (and/or its aftermath) may have "saved" you, but I'm sitting here amid a devastating "silent apostasy" (Blessed John Paul II's words) that occurred in my family in the late 1960s and 1970s. In fact, I have three dozen cousins, and I am the only practicing Catholic among them. Not a single one of my parents or aunts or uncles are churchgoers, with the exception of my father---who was a devout Catholic when his faith was destroyed in the late 1960s and 1970s and who is now a Baptist.* Alas my case is not unusual.

*Incidentally, my now-Baptist father only wants to accompany me to Mass if I take him to the traditional rite. He is scandalized by the typical Novus Ordo. He said the irreverence and shenanigans at these Masses brings back the pain he felt as a young man "when all hell broke loose" in his parish and school and diocese.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #47 on: August 31, 2011, 01:11:51 PM »

And, Robb, the Council (and/or its aftermath) may have "saved" you, but I'm sitting here amid a devastating "silent apostasy" (Blessed John Paul II's words) that occurred in my family in the late 1960s and 1970s. In fact, I have three dozen cousins, and I am the only practicing Catholic among them. Not a single one of my parents or aunts or uncles are churchgoers, with the exception of my father---who was a devout Catholic when his faith was destroyed in the late 1960s and 1970s and who is now a Baptist.* Alas my case is not unusual.

*Incidentally, my now-Baptist father only wants to accompany me to Mass if I take him to the traditional rite. He is scandalized by the typical Novus Ordo. He said the irreverence and shenanigans at these Masses brings back the pain he felt as a young man "when all hell broke loose" in his parish and school and diocese.
What was the real cause of Vatican II? Did it have anything to do with the terrible devastation and loss of life on both sides in WWI and WWII? How did the fanatical pro-Catholic Ustase in Croatia come to power?
Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #48 on: September 04, 2011, 04:47:28 PM »

I don't see how you could attribute that all specifically to Vatican II (Unless the Council itself was the direct cause of their departure from the faith)?  If these departures were caused by some local misinterpretation of Vatican II then maybe I could understand your frustration, but a misinterpretation of official decrees isn't the fault of the Council itself, but of those who were responsible for pastorally implementing them.

Also, your not alone in having these family defections.  I good number of my extended family, although not all are lapsed Catholics or members of other faiths.  However I don't attribute their departures to Vatican II itself or even a misinterpretation of it. The main reason so many left was because they were "bored" with the Church and didn't "get anything" out of it (At least that's what they've told me).  I can hardly imagine how having the liturgy in Latin with the priest turned backward from the congregation would have made them more enthusiastic Catholics.  Perhaps they would have stayed out of fear because the clergy would have still been preaching fire and brimstone for all those who dared think about leaving the faith, but I doubt it.  At my home parish, we had a priest who preached exactly like that and way past Vatican II, up until his retirement in the late 80's.  Not too many changes or misinterpretations of the Council were present in our parish during those years, but that still didn't stop a good deal of my relatives from growing disillusioned and eventually leaving the faith.

Let us also not forget that many EO's have also left the practice of their faith and either become lapsed or joined sectarian groups.  The Orthodox never had a Vatican II so why do so many of (The cradle ones anyway) drop out of the Church? 
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #49 on: September 04, 2011, 05:05:33 PM »

I don't see how you could attribute that all specifically to Vatican II (Unless the Council itself was the direct cause of their departure from the faith)?  If these departures were caused by some local misinterpretation of Vatican II then maybe I could understand your frustration, but a misinterpretation of official decrees isn't the fault of the Council itself, but of those who were responsible for pastorally implementing them.

Also, your not alone in having these family defections.  I good number of my extended family, although not all are lapsed Catholics or members of other faiths.  However I don't attribute their departures to Vatican II itself or even a misinterpretation of it. The main reason so many left was because they were "bored" with the Church and didn't "get anything" out of it (At least that's what they've told me).  I can hardly imagine how having the liturgy in Latin with the priest turned backward from the congregation would have made them more enthusiastic Catholics.  Perhaps they would have stayed out of fear because the clergy would have still been preaching fire and brimstone for all those who dared think about leaving the faith, but I doubt it.  At my home parish, we had a priest who preached exactly like that and way past Vatican II, up until his retirement in the late 80's.  Not too many changes or misinterpretations of the Council were present in our parish during those years, but that still didn't stop a good deal of my relatives from growing disillusioned and eventually leaving the faith.

Let us also not forget that many EO's have also left the practice of their faith and either become lapsed or joined sectarian groups.  The Orthodox never had a Vatican II so why do so many of (The cradle ones anyway) drop out of the Church? 
Although  some Orthodox may not go to Church regularly, nevertheless, I am not convinced that they have dropped out of the Church.  In many ways, the Church is still part of their lives.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #50 on: September 04, 2011, 06:16:34 PM »

And, Robb, the Council (and/or its aftermath) may have "saved" you, but I'm sitting here amid a devastating "silent apostasy" (Blessed John Paul II's words) that occurred in my family in the late 1960s and 1970s. In fact, I have three dozen cousins, and I am the only practicing Catholic among them. Not a single one of my parents or aunts or uncles are churchgoers, with the exception of my father---who was a devout Catholic when his faith was destroyed in the late 1960s and 1970s and who is now a Baptist.* Alas my case is not unusual.

*Incidentally, my now-Baptist father only wants to accompany me to Mass if I take him to the traditional rite. He is scandalized by the typical Novus Ordo. He said the irreverence and shenanigans at these Masses brings back the pain he felt as a young man "when all hell broke loose" in his parish and school and diocese.
Lord have mercy!
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Scotty
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Portland
Posts: 86



« Reply #51 on: September 05, 2011, 05:45:10 PM »

I feel for you Robb, you aren't alone... The problem is, most family members feel there is nothing wrong with being a lapsed Catholic, since they're good people and will still get to heaven.
Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #52 on: September 06, 2011, 06:33:38 PM »

What kind of "loyalty" is this?


Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. You seem to be one of those "hermeneutic of rupture" people that the Supreme Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI, has warned about.

You also put your opinion above popes like Benedict and Paul VI himself when you call Vatican II a dogmatic council.

Methinks the Holy Father could use for more loyal sons like the FSSP.

Well while you take this or that past comment from the Pope and lift it out of context, piece mealing them together to fit your own agenda, I'm reading from official Vatican pronouncements and documents which state clearly that the SSPX is still in a schism for rejecting Vatican II.  The Pope might do this or that in order to create an atmosphere of good will necessary for a future reunion to take place, but Vatican II still must be accepted in its entirety by the SSPX in order for any real unity to be achieved.  The Society must give up its integrist mentality completely, including its anti semitism and sexism, along with its opposition to democracy and religious liberty.  Then peace will come, but so far this is what the Vatican still says.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_between_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X_and_the_Holy_See

No change in juridical status

A Note of the Secretariat of State issued on 4 February 2009 specified that, while the lifting of the excommunication freed the four bishops from a very grave canonical penalty, it made no change in the juridical situation of the Society of St. Pius X, which continued to lack canonical recognition in the Catholic Church, and that the four bishops remained without any canonical function in the Church and were not exercising legitimately any ministry within it. The note added that future recognition of the Society required full recognition of the Second Vatican Council and of the teaching of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and repeated the assurance given in the decree of 21 January 2009 that the Holy See would study, along with those involved, the questions not yet settled, so as to reach a full satisfactory solution of the problems that had given rise to the split.[18]

Pope Benedict XVI confirmed this stance in his motu proprio Ecclesiae unitatem of 2 July 2009, in which he declared that by lifting the excommunication of the four bishops he "intended to remove an impediment that might have jeopardized the opening of a door to dialogue and thereby to invite the Bishops and the 'Society of St Pius X' to rediscover the path to full communion with the Church. ... the remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the context of ecclesiastical discipline to free the individuals from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. However, the doctrinal questions obviously remain and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry."

The SSPX has also confirmed that reunion with Rome is not possible (For them) At this time in an interview earlier this year.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1100721.htm

Traditionalist bishop cites lack of progress in talks with Vatican
« Last Edit: September 06, 2011, 06:34:13 PM by Robb » Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #53 on: September 06, 2011, 07:09:35 PM »

What kind of "loyalty" is this?


Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. You seem to be one of those "hermeneutic of rupture" people that the Supreme Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI, has warned about.

You also put your opinion above popes like Benedict and Paul VI himself when you call Vatican II a dogmatic council.

Methinks the Holy Father could use for more loyal sons like the FSSP.

I think you need to go and read the original text of Pope Paul's opening address, where there is reference to something about "pastoral" with respect to the Second Vatican Council but not flat out statement that the council was pastoral and NOT dogmatic.

I think you will find that it was NEVER said that the Second Vatican was only a pastoral council.

That old saw has been around so long there are no more teeth in it.

Last time I looked you could find it on-line.  I don't have the inclination or time to look at the moment, so this is merely FYI

Mary

PS: Clue:  in the documents of the Second Vatican one finds Dogmatic Constitution on the Church: that is hardly a pastoral title.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2011, 07:21:01 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

HeruvimTajno
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Catholic with a love of the East
Posts: 23


Christ the Bridegroom


« Reply #54 on: September 06, 2011, 07:13:29 PM »

Even if Bp. Fellay surprises us by reentering into full communion with the Church, I would not be surprised at all if Bp. Williamson blew a gasket and split off from the church entirely and started some sedevacantist group, or at least some SSPX-like society of schismatic priests. (They could be the Society of St. Justin Martyr and exclusively say the pre-Nicean true Greek catacomb liturgy, because Nicea is a heretical council and the liturgy it spawned is defective. Cheesy)
Logged

Let us who mystically represent the cherubim and sing the thrice-holy hymn unto the life-giving Trinity now lay aside all earthly care. Amen. That we may receive the King of All escorted invisibly by angelic hosts. Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia.
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #55 on: September 07, 2011, 05:26:59 PM »

Even if Bp. Fellay surprises us by reentering into full communion with the Church, I would not be surprised at all if Bp. Williamson blew a gasket and split off from the church entirely and started some sedevacantist group, or at least some SSPX-like society of schismatic priests. (They could be the Society of St. Justin Martyr and exclusively say the pre-Nicean true Greek catacomb liturgy, because Nicea is a heretical council and the liturgy it spawned is defective. Cheesy)

That happens with all seperatist Church groups.  It happened witha segment of ROCOR who couldn't stomach a reunion with the MP.  Mark my words, just like the ROCOR splinter schism factioned into numerous little schisms, so will the Williamsonite group too.  When your trying to rebel against someone, there is no unity, only disunity along with charismatic leaders who prey on that in order to create their won little centers of authority.  Its a never ending cyle of chaos.
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,636



« Reply #56 on: September 07, 2011, 06:10:04 PM »

Even if Bp. Fellay surprises us by reentering into full communion with the Church, I would not be surprised at all if Bp. Williamson blew a gasket and split off from the church entirely and started some sedevacantist group, or at least some SSPX-like society of schismatic priests. (They could be the Society of St. Justin Martyr and exclusively say the pre-Nicean true Greek catacomb liturgy, because Nicea is a heretical council and the liturgy it spawned is defective. Cheesy)

That happens with all seperatist Church groups.  It happened witha segment of ROCOR who couldn't stomach a reunion with the MP.  Mark my words, just like the ROCOR splinter schism factioned into numerous little schisms, so will the Williamsonite group too.  When your trying to rebel against someone, there is no unity, only disunity along with charismatic leaders who prey on that in order to create their won little centers of authority.  Its a never ending cyle of chaos.

I'm not so sure if the situation with ROCOR is comparable with the SSPX situation, but you're probably right that just like  the reunion of ROCOR with the Russian Orthodox Church, any reunion between the RCC and the SSPX will probably result in splinter groups which refuse to resume communion.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #57 on: September 07, 2011, 08:55:23 PM »

good people

The most devoid-of-content phrase doing the rounds in the Anglosphere.

I suspect that this phrase is responsible for the damnation of many. Lord, have mercy.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #58 on: September 07, 2011, 10:45:32 PM »

Hmm, so according to Robb, the SSPX is schismatic but NOT excommunicated for it. Isn't that interesting.  Roll Eyes
Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #59 on: September 08, 2011, 12:16:42 AM »

Hmm, so according to Robb, the SSPX is schismatic but NOT excommunicated for it. Isn't that interesting.  Roll Eyes

No, that's according to the Vatican.  The excommunications were lifted as a gesture of good will on the Popes part.  So far, as I can see the SSPX has not reciprocated the gesture.

The only SSPXer's who were officially excommunicated were Lefebvre and the four bishops he consecrated.  The rest of their clergy, masses, and sacraments were/ are illicit, and schismatic, but not officially excommunicated by any Vatican decree.  The same goes for those who leave the RCC for another religion.  You've made a big sin and are on the outs with the Church, but you usually don't get the privilege of having an official bull of excommunication drawn up against you. 

By their own propaganda the SSPX attempts to jump through hopes and find every type of loophole to prove that they are still in Romes good graces.  The take every Papal, Vatican comment and bureaucratic muttering and stretch them out of context in order to suit their own agenda and give validity to their cause.  Any time a Church or particular religious group has to go through such great, almost mathematical attempts in order to prove their validity, that's a very good sign that said group is lacking in it.  The same goes for various Orthodox groups and pseudo churches which go to great lengths to try and prove their canonicity and give lengthy, detailed list of their ordinations and what bishop consecrated so and so and where he drew his succession from.  Any time a group goes through that routine, the best bet is to run far away from them, for a Shakespeare says "Thou dost protest too much". 
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
KShaft
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 249



« Reply #60 on: September 08, 2011, 02:16:50 AM »

I don't see how you could attribute that all specifically to Vatican II (Unless the Council itself was the direct cause of their departure from the faith)?  If these departures were caused by some local misinterpretation of Vatican II then maybe I could understand your frustration, but a misinterpretation of official decrees isn't the fault of the Council itself, but of those who were responsible for pastorally implementing them.

Also, your not alone in having these family defections.  I good number of my extended family, although not all are lapsed Catholics or members of other faiths.  However I don't attribute their departures to Vatican II itself or even a misinterpretation of it. The main reason so many left was because they were "bored" with the Church and didn't "get anything" out of it (At least that's what they've told me).  I can hardly imagine how having the liturgy in Latin with the priest turned backward from the congregation would have made them more enthusiastic Catholics.  Perhaps they would have stayed out of fear because the clergy would have still been preaching fire and brimstone for all those who dared think about leaving the faith, but I doubt it.  At my home parish, we had a priest who preached exactly like that and way past Vatican II, up until his retirement in the late 80's.  Not too many changes or misinterpretations of the Council were present in our parish during those years, but that still didn't stop a good deal of my relatives from growing disillusioned and eventually leaving the faith.

Let us also not forget that many EO's have also left the practice of their faith and either become lapsed or joined sectarian groups.  The Orthodox never had a Vatican II so why do so many of (The cradle ones anyway) drop out of the Church? 

The Mass attendance in the Catholic church went from 70% to a 30% average upon implementation of the committee formed so called liturgy (novus ordo). You want an example talk to the Rector of this parish. A former Jesuit.  http://www.churchofourlady.org/about.html   He still cares about the Roman Church so just expect honest talk and not the polemic anti-western bigotry that spews from some of the mouths of the closet muslims that call themselves Orthodox on this site.
The Orthodox never had anything remotely close to the falling out of the aftermath of VII and the wound it has created and continues to bleed and infect.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #61 on: September 08, 2011, 02:21:46 AM »

Hmm, so according to Robb, the SSPX is schismatic but NOT excommunicated for it. Isn't that interesting.  Roll Eyes

No, that's according to the Vatican.  The excommunications were lifted as a gesture of good will on the Popes part.  So far, as I can see the SSPX has not reciprocated the gesture.

The only SSPXer's who were officially excommunicated were Lefebvre and the four bishops he consecrated.  The rest of their clergy, masses, and sacraments were/ are illicit, and schismatic, but not officially excommunicated by any Vatican decree.  The same goes for those who leave the RCC for another religion.  You've made a big sin and are on the outs with the Church, but you usually don't get the privilege of having an official bull of excommunication drawn up against you. 

By their own propaganda the SSPX attempts to jump through hopes and find every type of loophole to prove that they are still in Romes good graces.  The take every Papal, Vatican comment and bureaucratic muttering and stretch them out of context in order to suit their own agenda and give validity to their cause.  Any time a Church or particular religious group has to go through such great, almost mathematical attempts in order to prove their validity, that's a very good sign that said group is lacking in it.  The same goes for various Orthodox groups and pseudo churches which go to great lengths to try and prove their canonicity and give lengthy, detailed list of their ordinations and what bishop consecrated so and so and where he drew his succession from.  Any time a group goes through that routine, the best bet is to run far away from them, for a Shakespeare says "Thou dost protest too much". 
A schism usually entails a break in communion.  But both the Roman Catholic Church and the SSPX community will accept members from the other with no formalities required.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #62 on: September 08, 2011, 02:24:22 AM »

The Orthodox never had anything remotely close to the falling out of the aftermath of VII and the wound it has created and continues to bleed and infect.
Why have the Orthodox been able to preserve their liturgy but Rome did not succeed?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #63 on: September 08, 2011, 02:27:27 AM »

... He still cares about the Roman Church so just expect honest talk and not the polemic anti-western bigotry that spews from some of the mouths of the closet muslims that call themselves Orthodox on this site.
Why do you consider Orthodox to be closet muslims? If they have preserved their ancient traditions and are fearful of the west which they see as abandoning traditions and embracing modern movements, is that something to be condemned or admired?
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,612


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #64 on: September 08, 2011, 03:56:52 AM »

The Orthodox never had anything remotely close to the falling out of the aftermath of VII and the wound it has created and continues to bleed and infect.
Why have the Orthodox been able to preserve their liturgy but Rome did not succeed?

Because the Orthodox Church is sure and confident in its fidelity to the Apostolic faith. Jesus Christ the same, yesterday, today and forever. The Orthodox Church has seen no need to conform to the fashions and ephemera of the world which fade away in time; and has maintained great adherence to lex orandi, lex credendi.
Logged
KShaft
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 249



« Reply #65 on: September 08, 2011, 11:24:58 AM »

The Orthodox never had anything remotely close to the falling out of the aftermath of VII and the wound it has created and continues to bleed and infect.
Why have the Orthodox been able to preserve their liturgy but Rome did not succeed?

Because the Orthodox Church is sure and confident in its fidelity to the Apostolic faith. Jesus Christ the same, yesterday, today and forever. The Orthodox Church has seen no need to conform to the fashions and ephemera of the world which fade away in time; and has maintained great adherence to lex orandi, lex credendi.

Amen to this.
Logged
KShaft
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 249



« Reply #66 on: September 08, 2011, 11:38:38 AM »

... He still cares about the Roman Church so just expect honest talk and not the polemic anti-western bigotry that spews from some of the mouths of the closet muslims that call themselves Orthodox on this site.
Why do you consider Orthodox to be closet muslims? If they have preserved their ancient traditions and are fearful of the west which they see as abandoning traditions and embracing modern movements, is that something to be condemned or admired?

NO NO NO. Im talking about specific individuals who are mindlessly polemic on this site in particular.  I attend mostly Orthodox services, and am overjoyed and profoundly grateful that the faith has been so well taken care of by this true branch of the Catholic church.   So much so that I will likely enter in to it, which is both a sad and joyous occasion for reasons that should be obvious. 
Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #67 on: September 08, 2011, 06:07:09 PM »

I don't see how you could attribute that all specifically to Vatican II (Unless the Council itself was the direct cause of their departure from the faith)?  If these departures were caused by some local misinterpretation of Vatican II then maybe I could understand your frustration, but a misinterpretation of official decrees isn't the fault of the Council itself, but of those who were responsible for pastorally implementing them.

Also, your not alone in having these family defections.  I good number of my extended family, although not all are lapsed Catholics or members of other faiths.  However I don't attribute their departures to Vatican II itself or even a misinterpretation of it. The main reason so many left was because they were "bored" with the Church and didn't "get anything" out of it (At least that's what they've told me).  I can hardly imagine how having the liturgy in Latin with the priest turned backward from the congregation would have made them more enthusiastic Catholics.  Perhaps they would have stayed out of fear because the clergy would have still been preaching fire and brimstone for all those who dared think about leaving the faith, but I doubt it.  At my home parish, we had a priest who preached exactly like that and way past Vatican II, up until his retirement in the late 80's.  Not too many changes or misinterpretations of the Council were present in our parish during those years, but that still didn't stop a good deal of my relatives from growing disillusioned and eventually leaving the faith.

Let us also not forget that many EO's have also left the practice of their faith and either become lapsed or joined sectarian groups.  The Orthodox never had a Vatican II so why do so many of (The cradle ones anyway) drop out of the Church? 

The Mass attendance in the Catholic church went from 70% to a 30% average upon implementation of the committee formed so called liturgy (novus ordo). You want an example talk to the Rector of this parish. A former Jesuit.  http://www.churchofourlady.org/about.html   He still cares about the Roman Church so just expect honest talk and not the polemic anti-western bigotry that spews from some of the mouths of the closet muslims that call themselves Orthodox on this site.
The Orthodox never had anything remotely close to the falling out of the aftermath of VII and the wound it has created and continues to bleed and infect.

I've got a suprise for you, I have talked to him before.  As a matter of fact, he baptized me into Orthodox some 11 years ago!  He's a very nice priest and I certainly can understand the frustration that those of his generation went through during the Councillor period.  Yet I refuse to either reject or disbelieve in Vatican II because of his opinions (Fine, fine man though he be) Or the opinions of anyone else for that matter.  I trust in my Church and the decisions of her magesterium, that's all I can say.
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #68 on: September 08, 2011, 07:17:32 PM »

I don't see how you could attribute that all specifically to Vatican II (Unless the Council itself was the direct cause of their departure from the faith)?  If these departures were caused by some local misinterpretation of Vatican II then maybe I could understand your frustration, but a misinterpretation of official decrees isn't the fault of the Council itself, but of those who were responsible for pastorally implementing them.

Also, your not alone in having these family defections.  I good number of my extended family, although not all are lapsed Catholics or members of other faiths.  However I don't attribute their departures to Vatican II itself or even a misinterpretation of it. The main reason so many left was because they were "bored" with the Church and didn't "get anything" out of it (At least that's what they've told me).  I can hardly imagine how having the liturgy in Latin with the priest turned backward from the congregation would have made them more enthusiastic Catholics.  Perhaps they would have stayed out of fear because the clergy would have still been preaching fire and brimstone for all those who dared think about leaving the faith, but I doubt it.  At my home parish, we had a priest who preached exactly like that and way past Vatican II, up until his retirement in the late 80's.  Not too many changes or misinterpretations of the Council were present in our parish during those years, but that still didn't stop a good deal of my relatives from growing disillusioned and eventually leaving the faith.

Let us also not forget that many EO's have also left the practice of their faith and either become lapsed or joined sectarian groups.  The Orthodox never had a Vatican II so why do so many of (The cradle ones anyway) drop out of the Church? 

The Mass attendance in the Catholic church went from 70% to a 30% average upon implementation of the committee formed so called liturgy (novus ordo). You want an example talk to the Rector of this parish. A former Jesuit.  http://www.churchofourlady.org/about.html   He still cares about the Roman Church so just expect honest talk and not the polemic anti-western bigotry that spews from some of the mouths of the closet muslims that call themselves Orthodox on this site.
The Orthodox never had anything remotely close to the falling out of the aftermath of VII and the wound it has created and continues to bleed and infect.

I've got a suprise for you, I have talked to him before.  As a matter of fact, he baptized me into Orthodox some 11 years ago!  He's a very nice priest and I certainly can understand the frustration that those of his generation went through during the Councillor period.  Yet I refuse to either reject or disbelieve in Vatican II because of his opinions (Fine, fine man though he be) Or the opinions of anyone else for that matter.  I trust in my Church and the decisions of her magesterium, that's all I can say.
Amen, Robb. As do I.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.113 seconds with 52 queries.