The Growing Scourge Of Catholic Tribalism

[BarbTherese]

Hi again AB - I agree with most all your comments although not in your words :)  -  and I am most certainly not flippant, nor hope I would ever be so, about the absolute and undoubted reality of Hell and the potential for any person to find themselves there and mortal sin unrepented has this power to condemn to Hell.  I cannot say how many will or will not be saved.  My hope, prayer and effort. wherever I might somehow contribute be it ever so minimal, is that all will be saved and this is certainly in line with the reasons Jesus died and The Church's constant prayer and efforts that all will be saved.  The Church, The Mystical Body of Christ on earth, prays constantly for the conversion of sinners - and this covers the whole of mankind without exceptions for we are all sinners - and for conversion of their own hearts and that of others is very close to the heart of many Catholics - clerical, religious and laity in their devotion to Jesus and His Mission, His Most Sacred Heart. 

 

Barb :)

[NotreDame]

 "Open Windows - Why Vatican II was necessary" http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/gjohnston/07720.html (This is not a personal experience reflection and is more an in depth type of analysis).

 

BT - I looked through this article.  Despite the title, the article does *not* say why Vatican II was called.  The Author is explicit that the Pope didn't give any clear reasons.  Then the author goes on to list what he sees as issues prior to VII (some of which are debatable), all of which were exacerbated rather than improved by VII.  It does correctly point out that the council was not dogmatic.

 

Why can't we be honest that VII was, if not the cause, the catalyst for a huge number of problems?  If there were problems prior to VII, then let's also fault the council for not being able to address any of the issues they faced. 

 

We can blame it all on implementation, but the blame still falls on the same people.  We can blame it on timing, but - again - the Pope should have been able to read the signs of the times and understand the risks, so the blame still falls on the same people.

[NotreDame]

I tend to view VII and it's horrible results as a cleansing and apparently it crossed Ratzinger's mind as well (see below.)  We still have some despicable bishops and cardinals, but things seem to have bottomed out in the last 5-10 years and the men entering seminaries today seem to have better intentions then they've had in decades.  The old men will die off and I believe (hope?) better men will replace them. 

 

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/papa-el-papa-pope-benedetto-xvi-benedict-xvi-benedicto-xvi-22434/

 

In five little known radio speeches made in 1969 and published again a while ago by Ignatius Press in the volume “Faith and the Future”, the future Pope gave his vision of the future of man and the Church. His last teaching, which he read out on “Hessian Rundfunk” radio on Christmas day, had a distinctly prophetic tone.

Ratzinger said he was convinced the Church was going through an era similar to the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. “We are at a huge turning point – he explained – in the evolution of mankind. This moment makes the move from Medieval to modern times seem insignificant.” Professor Ratzinger compared the current era to that of Pope Pius VI who was abducted by troops of the French Republic and died in prison in 1799. The Church was fighting against a force which intended to annihilate it definitively, confiscating its property and dissolving religious orders.

 

Today's Church could be faced with a similar situation, undermined, according to Ratzinger, by the temptation to reduce priests to “social workers” and it and all its work reduced to a mere political presence. “From today's crisis, will emerge a Church that has lost a great deal,” he affirmed.

 

“It will become small and will have to start pretty much all over again. It will no longer have use of the structures it built in its years of prosperity. The reduction in the number of faithful will lead to it losing an important part of its social privileges.” It will start off with small groups and movements and a minority that will make faith central to experience again. “It will be a more spiritual Church, and will not claim a political mandate flirting with the Right one minute and the Left the next. It will be poor and will become the Church of the destitute.”
 

The process outlined by Ratzinger was a “long” one “but when all the suffering is past, a great power will emerge from a more spiritual and simple Church,” at which point humans will realise that they live in a world of “indescribable solitude” and having lost sight of God “they will perceive the horror of their poverty.”

Then and only then, Ratzinger concluded, will they see “that small flock of faithful as something completely new: they will see it as a source of hope for themselves, the answer they had always secretly been searching for.

[mortify ii]

My words worked for a civilisation that stretches back centuries and even millennia. Forgive me if I do not apologise for offending your modern sensibilities.

There is a lot in our past "civilisation" that is less than admirable. You emmulating that aspect of it doesn't speak highly of yourself.

You call it totalitarianism. I call it being human.

It's a past system of governance more influenced by European paganism and a lacking of human dignity than anything else.

[ClemensBruno]

------
BarbaraTherese said:
You may be spot on, CB, looking at things in a rational and worldly sort of way - and this has very real value. But The Lord has reasons rather often which bamboozle - and He can rather often "write straight in (outstandingly) very crooked lines".
-------

Good point, BarbaraTherese. If I remember correctly, St. Thomas Aquinas in his "Summa Theologica" demonstrated that it is through reason that we can begin to grasp the Divine, although human reason can never fully understand the Divine. God is beyond our physical world and our capacity for reason. It is because of our limitations that through Divine Grace God bestows Faith upon us. Hence, I am uncomfortable in claiming through reason God's intervention in any of our lowly human affairs.


-------
BarbaraTherese said:
Being a valid Council of The Catholic Church, Catholics ideally believe it was a work of Jesus as Head of The Church and thus a work of The Holy Spirit to the Glory of The Father.
-------

True, and well said. However, no matter how divinely guided our Mother Church and our leaders are, we cannot escape the limitations and flaws of our humanity's flawed influence on the Church. A quick glean of history will demonstrate this point amply. Since I lack the vision to separate human intervention from what is truly Divine in our present affairs in the Church, I assume the Divine unless my conscience empathically objects.

I am, after all, a beneficiary of ideals deeply held by my American society. I am also a product of American Catholic schools and the effects of Vatican II. "Can't see the forest for the trees," so to speak.

Hence, I rely on continual examination using human reason, however limited it may be, to understand myself and events in my life. Because of its limitations, my rational capabilities are tempered with skepticism, and I stay away from self-certainty and ideological thinking. And I continually seek ways to enhance my understanding. So far, with God's help my thinking as described above has benefitted me in my secular profession, but it has also caused me some consternation. To me, life is continual learning.
...but I digress while attempting to explain my outlook. Hope this helps, BarbaraTherese. If not, please disregard.

Your brother in Christ

[BarbTherese]

BT - I looked through this article.  Despite the title, the article does *not* say why Vatican II was called.  The Author is explicit that the Pope didn't give any clear reasons.  Then the author goes on to list what he sees as issues prior to VII (some of which are debatable), all of which were exacerbated rather than improved by VII.  It does correctly point out that the council was not dogmatic.

 

Why can't we be honest that VII was, if not the cause, the catalyst for a huge number of problems?  If there were problems prior to VII, then let's also fault the council for not being able to address any of the issues they faced. 

 

We can blame it all on implementation, but the blame still falls on the same people.  We can blame it on timing, but - again - the Pope should have been able to read the signs of the times and understand the risks, so the blame still falls on the same people.

 

Hello again, ND.  Perhaps the following link will be more informative to you and your reflecting  http://conciliaria.com/2011/12/john-xxiii-convokes-council/ In Humanae Salutis, Pope John XXIII " recounts the first announcement of his intention to convoke a Council in January 1959 and the positive approach he takes toward the Council".

 

Undoubtedly as a Council of The Catholic Church, Vatican II was a work of The Holy Spirit - for all the human and worldly problems we may be able to sight.  In the Doctrine of the Direct and Permissive Will of God HERE,***(see quote box below) we see The Lord acting as Lord of all history and directly willing or permitting all things.  As the article HERE (previously quoted) stated, the works of God are not always marked by success in human and worldly terms.  Our way in Faith is Jesus, The Way, The Truth and The Life and very often the Way of The Cross - rather than continual success or a form of millenarianism.  Faith alone tells us that despite all the problems we may be able to sight with our human and fallible reasoning, Vatican II remains a work of The Holy Spirit for all the mystery, even problems, it might present to us humanly, we can be totally confident that good will come of The Council - perhaps not tomorrow nor in our day.  Perhaps even, we will never sight that good which is a quite remote potential alone - not until Heaven anyway.  This is the Way of Faith, dark naked and confidently trustful Faith. Faith can and must seek understanding, but sometimes Faith must trust blindly in the face of Divine Providence and the events of history for one.  I don't say this blithely -  I say this having travelled 20 years with very serious episodes of Bipolar Disorder, hospitalization in psychiatric wards - with medicine offering me no hope of relief at all and for the rest of my life.  Medicine has been proved to be quite wrong. And Bipolar Disorder totally destroyed my hopes, dreams and life back then until I was very ill, impoverished, homeless and friendless, totally abandoned. My husband divorced me (now annulled) and my children were taken from me.  I know what it is to travel in dark and naked Faith alone faced on the human level with nothing but disaster and destruction.

 

I personally liked what Pope Benedict said that we have only just begun to understand Vatican II.

_______________

*** Catholic Catechism :-

 

 

314 We firmly believe that God is master of the world and of its history. But the ways of his providence are often unknown to us. Only at the end, when our partial knowledge ceases, when we see God "face to face",¹⁸⁴ will we fully know the ways by which - even through the dramas of evil and sin - God has guided his creation to that definitive sabbath rest¹⁸⁵ for which he created heaven and earth.

 

#313................"...........God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil.¹⁷⁶ He permits it, however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it:

 

For almighty God. . ., because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself.¹⁷⁷

312 In time we can discover that God in his almighty providence can bring a good from the consequences of an evil, even a moral evil, caused by his creatures: "It was not you", said Joseph to his brothers, "who sent me here, but God. . . You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive."¹⁷⁸ From the greatest moral evil ever committed - the rejection and murder of God's only Son, caused by the sins of all men - God, by his grace that "abounded all the more",¹⁷⁹ brought the greatest of goods: the glorification of Christ and our redemption. But for all that, evil never becomes a good.

313 "We know that in everything God works for good for those who love him."¹⁸⁰ The constant witness of the saints confirms this truth:

 

St. Catherine of Siena said to "those who are scandalized and rebel against what happens to them": "Everything comes from love, all is ordained for the salvation of man, God does nothing without this goal in mind."¹⁸¹

 

St. Thomas More, shortly before his martyrdom, consoled his daughter: "Nothing can come but that that God wills. And I make me very sure that whatsoever that be, seem it never so bad in sight, it shall indeed be the best."¹⁸²

 

Dame Julian of Norwich: "Here I was taught by the grace of God that I should steadfastly keep me in the faith. . . and that at the same time I should take my stand on and earnestly believe in what our Lord shewed in this time - that 'all manner [of] thing shall be well.'"¹⁸³

 

[BarbTherese]

------
BarbaraTherese said:
You may be spot on, CB, looking at things in a rational and worldly sort of way - and this has very real value. But The Lord has reasons rather often which bamboozle - and He can rather often "write straight in (outstandingly) very crooked lines".
-------

Good point, BarbaraTherese. If I remember correctly, St. Thomas Aquinas in his "Summa Theologica" demonstrated that it is through reason that we can begin to grasp the Divine, although human reason can never fully understand the Divine. God is beyond our physical world and our capacity for reason. It is because of our limitations that through Divine Grace God bestows Faith upon us. Hence, I am uncomfortable in claiming through reason God's intervention in any of our lowly human affairs.


-------
BarbaraTherese said:
Being a valid Council of The Catholic Church, Catholics ideally believe it was a work of Jesus as Head of The Church and thus a work of The Holy Spirit to the Glory of The Father.
-------

True, and well said. However, no matter how divinely guided our Mother Church and our leaders are, we cannot escape the limitations and flaws of our humanity's flawed influence on the Church. A quick glean of history will demonstrate this point amply. Since I lack the vision to separate human intervention from what is truly Divine in our present affairs in the Church, I assume the Divine unless my conscience empathically objects.

I am, after all, a beneficiary of ideals deeply held by my American society. I am also a product of American Catholic schools and the effects of Vatican II. "Can't see the forest for the trees," so to speak.

Hence, I rely on continual examination using human reason, however limited it may be, to understand myself and events in my life. Because of its limitations, my rational capabilities are tempered with skepticism, and I stay away from self-certainty and ideological thinking. And I continually seek ways to enhance my understanding. So far, with God's help my thinking as described above has benefitted me in my secular profession, but it has also caused me some consternation. To me, life is continual learning.
...but I digress while attempting to explain my outlook. Hope this helps, BarbaraTherese. If not, please disregard.

Your brother in Christ

 

Hi CB once more.

Faith can and must seek understanding - as in my previous post to ND.  We are all "coming from somewhere" or our past experiences and my own "coming from" means that I lean heavily on Faith in all things, nothing exempted.  Sometimes, as you point out, we can understand and insight, but often in the face of presenting circumstances, insight and understanding eludes and we must trust confidently without hesitation

 

One comment :

CB said: "Since I lack the vision to separate human intervention from what is truly Divine in our present affairs in the Church, I assume the Divine unless my conscience empathically objects."

 

If you do read my previous post to ND, I mention the Direct and Permissive Will of God.  In Faith and as The Church teaches, the whole of history and every individual is governed by The Divine to good at either an immediate or resulting point - and in all things and without any exceptions whatsoever in any circumstance either great or small, good or not good, which affects human history or an individual person.  To these points, in my post to ND, I quote at length the Catholic Catechism.

 

Barb :)

[NotreDame]

Hello again, ND.  Perhaps the following link will be more informative to you and your reflecting  http://conciliaria.com/2011/12/john-xxiii-convokes-council/ In Humanae Salutis, Pope John XXIII " recounts the first announcement of his intention to convoke a Council in January 1959 and the positive approach he takes toward the Council".

 

Undoubtedly as a Council of The Catholic Church, Vatican II was a work of The Holy Spirit - for all the human and worldly problems we may be able to sight. 

 

That link is pretty bland too.  He doesn't give any real reason.

 

"Council of The Catholic Church, Vatican II was a work of The Holy Spirit - for all the human and worldly problems we may be able to sight."

 

It was certainly an act by people who had the authority from Christ, but how do we know it was from the Holy Spirit?  Nothing was dogmatic from the council, so how do we know it's the work of the Spirit?

[BarbTherese]

Gosh!  ............ I am sure others could give you better responses, ND.  Mine can only be the response of Faith as put forward and explained (I hope) in previous posts to you and others.  If The Council was convened by those who had the authority from Christ to act, which it was, then obviously it is a work of The Holy Spirit.

 

__________________

On the subject of the Permissive Will of God and some evil to a lesser or greater degree in existence.  The very good that The Lord intends to come out of the evil He has permitted to exist, might be that very struggle we undertake and engage to defeat the evil.  The theology of The Permissive Will of God does not invite any sort of passivity.  In the face of evil, though The Lord has permitted it, we are called to engage in the struggle to defeat and overcome that evil.  Success, however, remains in The Lord's Domain and success (should it occur) is always primarily a work of His Grace and Gift.

 

PS Sorry the link I gave was no help to you! 

Edited January 6, 2014 by BarbaraTherese

[NotreDame]

If The Council was convened by those who had the authority from Christ to act, which it was, then obviously it is a work of The Holy Spirit.

 

No, it doesn't follow logically that having lawful authority makes one's acts of office the work of the Holy Spirit. 

 

I'm looking at the whole state of the Church since VII and something obviously went very wrong, whether in the council itself or the implementation or things done in the name of "the spirit of the council." 

 

Some Church authorities made some big mistakes at some point.  Why can't we just admit it!!!

[BarbTherese]

No, it doesn't follow logically that having lawful authority makes one's acts of office the work of the Holy Spirit. 

 

I'm looking at the whole state of the Church since VII and something obviously went very wrong, whether in the council itself or the implementation or things done in the name of "the spirit of the council." 

 

Some Church authorities made some big mistakes at some point.  Why can't we just admit it!!!

 

 

Christ has given The Church full authority to act and with a guarantee that such actions are guaranteed by Him and thus The Holy Spirit to The Glory of The Father (One God, Three Persons) “and I give to you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in Heaven”.  Thus Vatican II was a work of The Holy Spirit and was exercised by the Ordinary Magisterium (see quote box below) and for general purposes must be accepted with docility of mind and will, but not the assent of Faith.

The Council itself is a work of The Holy Spirit on a certain theological level (Ordinary Magisterium). This does not mean at all that misunderstandings of the Council would not occur nor incorrect decisions made and implemented.

 

 

 

 

http://catholicknight.blogspot.com.au/2008/12/breaking-pope-paul-vi-denied.html
Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Paul VI. In his General Audience of 12 January 1966,

 

explained:

 

" In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document."

 

 

 

 

To understand the difference between the Infallible Extra-ordinary Magisterium demanding the assent of Faith - and the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium and the assent of docility of mind and will, it really is necessary to do one’s own research as it is a very big subject indeed. Much too big a subject to cover in a post - even for my lengthy posting.

 

On a quite personal level, I am convinced that Vatican II in some quarters has been incorrectly understood and much effected in the name of “the spirit of the council” that was not the spirit of the council at all - and I personally was swept up in that false "spirit of the council" later to amend my position and years before this thread commenced.  From the commencement of my posts into this thread, I think I have made this point as my personal conviction and that mistakes were made by Church leadership in some instances, possibly many instances.

 

While I can admit that to me personally, mistakes were made by Church leadership in some possibly many instances, I don't have any personal answers since I am not sure at this point I am even asking myself the right questions.  What I try to do is to 'listen' to all and do my own research for the sake of my own understanding. 

 

In light of all the above it does not mean that The Council itself was not a work of The Holy Spirit.  I can assent with Pope Benedict that we have only probably just begun to understand Vatican II and that it leaves me anyway with a greater desire to be a listener and researcher, insofar as I am able, and to be patient about it all.  The Lord, The Holy Spirit, has His Reasons not clear to me at this point and ok by me.  I have no expectations to understand everything in my journey for sure.  Certainly for me personally since none of our Popes post V2 have spoken out against the Council, it speaks volumes to me.  Much in this thread for me has been a matter of research  (forming my questions and researching for answers)and ongoing reflection, prayer. 

 

is all that a disclaimer? :punchout: .............  :) 
 

Edited January 6, 2014 by BarbaraTherese

[An Historian]

No, it doesn't follow logically that having lawful authority makes one's acts of office the work of the Holy Spirit. 

 

I'm looking at the whole state of the Church since VII and something obviously went very wrong, whether in the council itself or the implementation or things done in the name of "the spirit of the council." 

 

Some Church authorities made some big mistakes at some point.  Why can't we just admit it!!!

 

I'll give you the most gross over-simplification in Church history.  Be forewarned.  There is a saintly face-palm extending does the line of Augustine of Canterbury, Thomas, Bonaventure, Duns Scotus, Lombard at what I have written. :P

 

Basically it works like this.  The Vatican Second Vatican council was a full and binding ecumenical council.  Called to respond the the post-war society we found ourselves in.  The Popes that oversaw the council said it was not dogmatic.  The Council itself said that it's defined absolutely no new dogma.  The Popes that have followed have said the very same thing.  Where the Council repeats things like the Real Presence of Christ, the Pope's authority, etc., then it's infallible and totally binding.  It's already been defined by the Church.

 

Now there are also new things in the Council.  There [i]are[/i] groundbreaking statements in the documents from the council and the Fathers that came after it.  But nothing was dogmatically defined.  Which means that it belongs to the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium.  Which also means that the competent authorities can reform and clarify until their heart's content.  The new doctrines wont be "developed".  They can be corrected if they are erroneous.

 

Using as an example... salvation of non-Catholics.  We know the traditional holding of the doctrine.  It's very black and white.  The Council expanded upon the dogma.  That development, that expansion, is not infallible.  It is an exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium and is thus open to critique and possible reform.  But it's not quite theological opinion.  It's a little higher than that.  We are obliged to give a form of assent to it.  That is, we should try and understand it and accept the Magisterium's teachings.  But if you cannot do that, you're not a heretic, you're not a schismatic (unless you start saying the Church is!).  Now I personally don't believe the Council's statements on the salvation of non-Catholics is consistent with the traditional dogma.  I believe it is an erroneous development.  It's a lot of mental leaps all rolled up in a big ball.  Is it [i]possible[/i]?  Yes.  Does it work that way?  I don't believe so nor do I believe the development of the dogma has helped the Church at all, but it has rather led to a weakening of the dogma and a lot of confusion in the world.  That's why Feeneyite's are in full communion with the Church and most are in canonical regularity.  That's why the "strict" interpretation is permitted.  That's why they're not heretics or schismatics.

 

But as I said, it's not theological opinion.  It's a step above that because it demands some form of assent on our part if it can be reconciled.  I can fully accept that I may be wrong in my belief on the strict interpretation.  [i][b]But it's also not my job or place to challenge it at the highest levels or to engage in dialogue and theological debate with the Magisterium over it.[/i][/b]  There [i]are[/i] people who's job that is and it can never be done without a spirit of solemnity because it's a really big deal.  It's our job, as the laity, to accept as much as we can, pray, good good works, frequent the Sacraments, and get to heaven.

 

So things such as the development of the salvation dogma, Ecumenism, Religious Liberty, etc., all break new ground and have not been infallibly defined.  They belong to the Ordinary Magisterium and [i][b]may[/i][/b] be wrong and subject to reform, clarification or even scrapping.  But that's not up to us, that's not our responsibility.  What we can do is pray for those whose job it is.  Pray, pray and pray ceaselessly.

 

The Ordinary Form is even more simpler than this.  When celebrated according to the books, with the correct intention, etc., etc., it is a fully valid and licit celebration of the Mass, the Holy Sacrifice is re-presented in a bloodless manner upon the Holy Altar, and is of infinite value as it always is.  But the ritual, the liturgy, can be entirely substandard.  Not directly poisonous.  Just not what it could be or even should be.  I believe it's responsible for a large part of the crisis we face today.  I believe that it must be reformed (the restoration of the 1962 missal will likely never happen).  The failure of Churchmen in this regard was that of negligence.  Not malicious poison.

 

So in summary:

 

#1 You don't have to accept the parts of Vatican II that are new and undefined if you cannot reconcile them, but you have an obligation to try as hard as you can to do so.

#2 Whether you can reconcile them or not doesn't really matter in the long run, because it's not your job to actively fix it besides prayer.

#3 You can be at perfect liberty to believe that the Council is responsible for much that's going on in the world, through either error in the Ordinary Magisterium, or because of poor construction of the documents, or not ample clarification, etc.

#4 You can reject the liturgy of the Ordinary Form as being inferior but not the Holy Sacrifice that occurs.

#5 Live a holy life, stay in communion with God and His Church, say your rosary, get to heaven.

 

And on a closing note, think Bl. John Paul II's Theology of the Body.  That is a part of his Magisterium, the Ordinary Magisterium of the Pope.  It's not infallible and can be subject to correction, reform or even scrapping.  It wouldn't be the first error in the Church's Ordinary Magisterium, it wont be the last.

[BarbTherese]

What is the Magisterium: http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/magisterium.htm

 

Live a holy life, stay in communion with God and His Church

 

 

Amen