Drinking The Kool-Aide

[cmotherofpirl]

Agree or disagree?

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=428

[ardillacid]

Grape!

[mommas_boy]

For my two cents, I will put forward what I have heard from others, more knowledgeable on this subject than I:

[indent]
There is both Vatican II, and the [i]Spirit[/i] of Vatican II. Vatican II, itself, was a good thing; the "Spirit" of Vatican II ... not so much.
[/indent]

Here, I believe the author of the original comment intended to express frustration not with the documents themselves, but rather some of the things that have been done in its name.

[AccountDeleted]

I'm not sure of the point of the article unless it is just to say that Vatican II is not to blame for everything that has happened in the Church, and I agree with this. And perhaps it was also asking people to read the actual documents from the Council before making a judgement, and I can agree with this too. At least I hope I am understanding the writer's point.

The Council documents are well worth reading and the Council obviously served a purpose at the time, sort of a 'coming of' age' for the Church that may have been necessary. But a lot of harm certainly came out of some of the Council documents as well, not simply because of their content but because of the way they were interpreted and used to push various liberal agendas. The political forces at work within the Church can somtimes be as great as those in the world; that is why the leaders of the Church need our constant prayers and intercessions for them to be holy and to follow God's will. We can't fight spiritual warfare using merely worldly weapons, but must use what God has given us, prayers, penance, Sacraments and the intercession of the Blessed Virgin and of all the saints and angels.

[cmotherofpirl]

I think his point is Vatican II as a council of the Church was guided and protected by the Holy Spirit. The aftermath [spirit of Vatican II croutons]was not.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I most strongly agree with the article.

Momma's Boy, the Spirit of the Council is none other than the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, there have been many who blaspheme Him by attributing to Him the works of those who have not upheld the Council.

The Council was good, the Spirit of the Council was good, the blasmphemy and spirit of dissent following the Council was bad.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Raphael' date='17 February 2010 - 04:07 PM' timestamp='1266440841' post='2058470']
I most strongly agree with the article.

Momma's Boy, the Spirit of the Council is none other than the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, there have been many who blaspheme Him by attributing to Him the works of those who have not upheld the Council.

The Council was good, the Spirit of the Council was good, the blasmphemy and [b]spirit of dissent[/b] following the Council was bad.
[/quote]

I believe this is what the author of the original comment meant.

[Resurrexi]

The author of the article states, "As Catholics, we are obliged to believe and trust that the pastoral advice of an ecumenical council is sound advice for the times—certainly far sounder than our own little ideas about what we’d like to see done." I'm sure, then, that he would agree that the disciplinary decisions of Lateran IV were all sound advice. I'm thinking specifically of canon 68, which stated that Jews and Muslims had to wear identifying clothing and could not appear in public during certain times.

(Basically the point I am trying to make is that, although [b]we are certainly obligated to assent to the doctrinal decisions of the popes and ecumenical councils[/b], the faithful are not obliged to feel that every disciplinary decision of a pope or council is a good one.)

Edited February 17, 2010 by Resurrexi

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='17 February 2010 - 06:39 PM' timestamp='1266446341' post='2058515']
The author of the article states, "As Catholics, we are obliged to believe and trust that the pastoral advice of an ecumenical council is sound advice for the times—certainly far sounder than our own little ideas about what we’d like to see done." I'm sure, then, that he would agree that the disciplinary decisions of Lateran IV were all sound advice. I'm thinking specifically of canon 68, which stated that Jews and Muslims had to wear identifying clothing and could not appear in public during certain times.

(Basically the point I am trying to make is that, although [b]we are certainly obligated to assent to the doctrinal decisions of the popes and ecumenical councils[/b], the faithful are not obliged to feel that every disciplinary decision of a pope or council is a good one.)
[/quote]
Disciplinary decisions are relative to their time, as you well know.

[Veridicus]

This is a good article. I like that the author mentioned this, 'This is why, when you read the remarks of Pope John Paul II or Benedict XVI on Vatican II over the past thirty-plus years, you’ll hear them again and again stating that the Council must be accepted, but the reform must be reformed. "

[Socrates]

[quote name='Raphael' date='17 February 2010 - 04:07 PM' timestamp='1266440841' post='2058470']
I most strongly agree with the article.

Momma's Boy, the Spirit of the Council is none other than the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, there have been many who blaspheme Him by attributing to Him the works of those who have not upheld the Council.

The Council was good, the Spirit of the Council was good, the blasmphemy and spirit of dissent following the Council was bad.
[/quote]
"The spirit of Vatican II" was a common catchphrase used by liberals to justify every sort of liturgical abuse and heretical nonsense. Liberal Catholics would say were acting "in the spirit of Vatican II" (even if what they were doing was blatantly contrary to the letter of Vatican II).


Dr. Mirus in his article is essentially refuting the common claim of "rad trads" and other conservatives that Vatican II itself is to blame for everything that went wrong in the Church.