Both Vice President Pence and Judge Gorsuch are fully initiated into the true Church, yet their current Catholic identity is ambiguous. Pence calls himself an evangelical Catholic and attended a non denominational mega church.
Gorsuch has attended his wife's Episcopal Church for the past 15 years although it is ambiguous if he has formally joined that denomination.
In days gone by this would have been declared anathema, but not a peep today from their local bishops considering their high profile stature as public servants.
What is so sad is how common this is today contributing to the tragic truth that in some dioceses only 12% of Catholics actually attend Mass with a goodly percentage of the 12% heterodox. In other words 88% of Catholics don't attend Mass.
33 comments:
If by, "DOES VATICAN II ECUMENISM LEAD TO CHRISTIAN EGALITARIANISM," you mean, "Does the Church see all Christian religions as equal?", the answer is no.
That conclusion cannot be drawn from what is taught by the Church regarding ecumenism beginning with Vatican Two and extending through the most recent official statements from the Church and its official dialogues.
But Father but Father, Sacrosanctum Concilium stated that only a conservative revision of the Mass should occur not a wholesale Reconstruction of it. It said only that some vernacular should be allowed while retaining Latin/Greek. this is what Vatican II taught and I am sure the same is true of what you say of ecumenism.
But what the hell does Vatican III have to do with the spirit of Vatican II that has guided the Magisterium and anarchists in the Church since???? Ecumenism as practiced by the spirit of Vatican II has led to what I describe above and much worse, to the point of cerebrating Martin Luther, inter-communion practiced in many places, which Pope Francis confirmed took place in Argentina. While one could stick one's head in sand of the ivory tower and say that Vatican II is what ecumenism does today, on the ground the laity don't buy it. They accept the Hersey of universalism, not only for the schism sects of Protestantism but for all religions and no religions.
schismatic
It does lead to egalitarianism. What is "taught by the Church" is increasingly just window dressing and "pastoral practice" continues to move toward "let the good times roll, Baby!"
I converted to Catholicism in 1978 as an adult and within a year realized the young priest where I went to daily Mass was a universalist, as this is what he taught the youth of the parish. He never uttered such sentiments at Mass itself, so far as I heard. In the almost 40 years since I converted, I have yet to hear a homily on death and judgment, heaven and hell. Does that mean all the priests are closet universalists? No. But a homily ought to bring forth that which is most important for the flock to hear, and sometimes what is not said is just as important as what is said. So what are the average Joes in the pew to think? If it is not important to their priests it can't be important to them. And so indifferentism thrives. Finally, where did this young priest, fresh out of seminary, get his views? I never asked him, and am sorry I never did.
Respectfully, I must agree with Fr AJM. Generally speaking, Vatican II has fostered the WRONG kind of ecumenical approach, one with no boundaries and lack of self-esteem/respect for one's own Catholic Faith, and I would even tie in the Novus Ordo liturgy and architecture as well into this, from a visual standpoint (I will refrain from theological/doctrinal discussion in this instance.). There is virtually no rules and only a handful of examples of true Ecumenism (e.g. Joint statement with Lutherans, SSPX permanent(?) re-establishment of confession absolvency for SSPX priests.) otherwise it's been all about accommodating the non-Catholics as best as possible, while containing the least amount of Catholicism.
With such attitudes express by Church leadership is there any doubt as to why joe Catholics thinks Catholicism is one way or religion to pick from in the world, and not the only (absolutely best) way to salvation?
Time to quit arguing about what Vatican II said or did not say, and simply move on from a council whose prudential judgements--taken in reaction to a period of societal chaos following a war that had devastated the European homeland of Catholicism--were simply out of joint and disastrous for the time the Church was just entering?
Henry,
Amen! If Vatican II had occurred in the 1950s, the results would have been radically different.
"this is what Vatican II taught and I am sure the same is true of what you say of ecumenism."
Is it? The documents are there for your reading and study. If the laity accept the heresy of universalism, that's not the fault of Vatican Two on Ecumenism.
"Respectfully, I must agree with Fr AJM. Generally speaking, Vatican II has fostered the WRONG kind of ecumenical approach, one with no boundaries and lack of self-esteem/respect for one's own Catholic Faith, and I would even tie in the Novus Ordo liturgy and architecture as well into this, from a visual standpoint (I will refrain from theological/doctrinal discussion in this instance.)."
I have never seen this "wrong" approach" with "no boundaries" and a lack of respect for one's own Catholic faith among the Catholic ecumenists with whom I have worked.
"There is virtually no rules and only a handful of examples of true Ecumenism (e.g. Joint statement with Lutherans, SSPX permanent(?) re-establishment of confession absolvency for SSPX priests.) otherwise it's been all about accommodating the non-Catholics as best as possible, while containing the least amount of Catholicism."
It is simply not true that there are only a "handful" of examples. An easy search through the many, many agreed upon statements will show this to be false.
It is also not true to say there are "no rules." An easy search for the Vatican approved Ecumenical Directory will show this, also, to be false.
Father Kavanaugh,
Have you implemented the following in your parish in accordance with Sacrosanctum Concilium and Musicam Sacram?
“Steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to
sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which
pertain to them.” (Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 50)
This was elaborate on in Musicam Sacram
“Pastors of souls should take care that besides the vernacular ‘the faithful
I know how you LOVE Vatican II, so I just wanted to be ensured how MUCH you love it!
may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the
Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.”’ (Sacred Congregation
of Rites, Musicam sacram (1967), n. 47)
Sorry I botched the second part
This was elaborated on in Musicam Sacram
“Pastors of souls should take care that besides the vernacular ‘the faithful
may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the
Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.”’ (Sacred Congregation
of Rites, Musicam sacram (1967), n. 47)
I know how you LOVE Vatican II, so I just wanted to be ensured how MUCH you love it!
For the fruits of true ecumenism, let me suggest a look at this video of this morning's "Children's Mass" for the parish school of Our Lady of Atonement Church, the Anglican Ordinate parish in San Antonio:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glFt6X9bO-8&feature=youtu.be
It's well worth viewing at least the first few minutes to get an idea of what the Anglican patrimony brings to the Church. Then you can step through the video to see some key moments -- the Kyrie at the 2:25 mark, the Humble Confession at 15:30, the preface at 21:30, the Consecration at 25:00, the Rite of Peace at 33:00, Holy Communion at 40:00.
Well heck, National Right to Life Organization is asking for money to support Gorsuch in his confirmation bid before the inquisition (the far-left Democrats on the committee). They aren't concerned about his religion...I think he married an Anglican (native British woman) so I guess they go to the parish that she prefers. I'm not so much concerned about his religion as that we don't get a "surprise appointment", like a Souter or Harry Blackmun, you know Republican appointees who "evolved" on some issues, one of those unfortunately being abortion (as in evolving to a liberal position).
Ecumenical work is important on the abortion issue---there obviously are not enough Catholics in most of Dixie to promote the conservative side of the issue. I doubt the Georgia Legislature, which has 236 members, can count more than 15 Catholics (if that) serving.
Here in Atlanta, with have ecumenical gatherings twice a year with the Greek Orthodox community, alternating between the 2 respective cathedrals. The Episcopal Diocese up here is pretty liberal so I don't think the Catholic Church does much with the Episcopalians in terms of ecumenical services up here. It is hard to see in today's climate how any serious ecumenical discussion can proceed between Rome and anyone other than the Orthodox, but even among those two there are significant differences, so much so it is hard to see how Rome and Constantinople could find agreement acceptable to both sides---if it were easy, it would have been accomplished long ago.
Ecumenism is a fool's errand with any Church other than the Orthodox. A waste of time, energy, and money. We need to get our own house in order before we reach out to other Faiths
TJM, it ain't that hard. Turn over a few tables, crack some whips, drive put the money changers. Maybe a long afternoon.
rcg, I guess a lot of cardinals and archbishops would be kicked out!
Group,
No response from the "Inartful Dodger" on whether he follows Sacrosanctum Concilium and its progeny, Musicam Sacram.
TJM - If you say you don't listen to the pope and bishops - and you did say that - then you can't claim a document of Vatican Two, which is the pope and bishops speaking through a Council - as authoritative.
And, if you get to claim that you can ignore the pope and bishops - and you have - then I can claim the same thing, can't I?
(I don't, as you know, but for the purpose of discussion...)
YEs, TJM, largely agree with earlier statement about ecumenism and the Orthodox. One exception might be Anglicans who could be comfortable with our Anglican Ordinariate. With regard to fundamentalists like Southern Baptists, even if we agree with them on lots of moral issues, they still lack any appreciation of ordered worship and the sacramental system through which we receive grace. In other words, the altar is the focus of our worship, not the pulpit.
Kavanaugh aka Inartful Dodger,
Just answer the question I posed and quit engaging in dilatory tactics.
TJM - You can't argue that, at the same time, Vatican Two is authoritative AND not authoritative. Choose one - I might then respond.
Kavanaugh,
I never said Vatican II (not Two) was not authoritative. IF you can find where I did, then quote. I have said numerous times the implementation was disastrous which is beyond peradventure. I said for my soul's sake I needed to tune Francis out. Francis would be like taking spiritual advice from Rodrigo Borgia. Did you shut your air conditioning off in response to Laudatio Si!! Enjoy your summer in Georgia!
You will NEVER answer my question because it would reveal you're just another faithless, cafeteria style priest. We're all on to your little game. Fortunately for souls, you won't be a pastor too much longer. The biological solution will take care of you and your ilk.
TJM - You never said you needed to tune Pope Francis out.
You said that you no longer listen to the pope and bishops.
The pope and bishops taught and teach through Vatican Two.
Hence...
Vatican II is not authoritative. Nothing infallible came from it. It was nothing but a humanistic, iconoclastic, feel-good circus. It produced thousands of Priests like Kavanaugh...proving that Pelagians inter-breed with existentialists.
Gene, Vatican II's documents are authoritative, even if not declaring anything new to be infallible, although there is already infallibly declared dogma in the documents. In the areas of faith and morals that are put forward, Catholics must give positive assent. When it comes to pastoral plans, such as ecumenism, interfaith relationships, attitude toward the world and religious liberty, we can respectfully disagree but not oppose the Magisterium in her pastoral plans especially expressed by an ecumenical Council with the pope and bishops teaching in the extraordinary Magisterium.
Disregarding the "spirit" of Vatican II is another matter.
"When it comes to pastoral plans, such as ecumenism, interfaith relationships, attitude toward the world and religious liberty, we can respectfully disagree but not oppose the Magisterium in her pastoral plans especially expressed by an ecumenical Council with the pope and bishops teaching in the extraordinary Magisterium."
I don't think documents such as Dignitatis Huamane can be described as merely a "pastoral plan."
DH speaks of the requirement that a society both refrain from preventing people from living out their religion and help to create the conditions for religious expression to flourish. Surely this is more than a mere "pastoral plan."
DH also speaks of the social dimension of religious freedom which includes the freedom to practice our faith in public. Again, there is much more here than a pastoral plan.
Kavanaugh aka Anonymous aka Inartful Dodger
You have learned well from the Alinsky branch of the Dem Party! When you want to run from your own deficiencies, you scream about the other guy "Russia, stolen election, Trump!"
Just let me know if have implemented Sacrosanctum Concilium and Musican Sacram as above noted and that you have shut down your air conditioning system, per Laudatio Si! AFter all, you are a pastor of souls, I am not, and I would hate to think you are depriving the "People of God" of their rightful liturgical patrimony!!!
TJM - Just let me know which it is - An authoritative Vatican Two, in which case you ARE listening to the pope and bishops or a non-authoritative Vatican Two, since you said you ignore the pope and bishops.
It was Paul VI who defined V2 as pastoral rather than dogmatic.
DH is problematic. It is largely the work of John Courtney Murray and it was rushed through in the closing weeks of the Council despite considerable opposition.
If it, or anything else the Council said, is incompatible with tradition, it has no authority. Those who defend DH do so on the grounds that it does not contradict established doctrine.
Those who see it, or anything else for that matter, as a new departure are hoist with their own petard.
Kavanuagh, just answer the question. Otherwise I would rightfully assume you are rejecting Sacrosanctum Concilium
TJM - You may assume what you will.
You said you were ignoring the pope and bishops. You didn't say you were "tuning out" Pope Francis.
Then, you turn around and tell others that THEY must listen to the pope and bishops.
You've painted yourself into this corner and you'll have to figure your own way out. Assuming what I accept or reject doesn't get you out of the trap you set for yourself.
Kavanaugh,
YOU have painted yourself in the corner to the point of ad infinitum. You run away when you don't want to answer unpleasant truths, particularly when John Nolan takes you to task.
You're a relic, blast from the bad past, the 1960s and 1970s! Your "work" will be undone by faithful, young priests.
Post a Comment