The Mistaken Revolution - Vatican II

PipeBombNews ^ | May 20 , 2002 | William A. Mayer Jr.

[johnqueuepublic]

Was Pat Buchanan present?

His defense of orthodoxy is about the only thing I can stand coming out of his mouth, wish he would spend more time bashing the Democrats.

[GenXFreedomFighter]

Clinton went to the Baptist Church in DC its not their fault.

Of course not. And I would never mean to imply that it was.

[Mike Fieschko]

The schism originated because the Eastern church would not recognize Jesus as part of the Godhead, the filioque clause inserted into the Nicene Creed caused the Eastern church to separate itself because they could not accept the Holy Spirit coming both from God and his Son.

I'm not Orthodox, but this is misrepresenting the Orthodox view of the divinity of Jesus Christ.

I don't want to put words in their mouths, but it's possible to argue that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, and also hold that the Son is 'one in substance with the Father'.

Any more comment by me on the procession of the Holy Spirit will probably raise howls of laughter from my theological betters.

[annalex]

For your information

[johnqueuepublic]

Whoops, he went to a lot of places, the point is that the dogma of the church is not hostage to such scum.

[johnqueuepublic]

Well said!

[annalex]

I remember having many Christian conservatives responding, some of them Buchanan supporters. One of them drew on the Rerum Novarum's counterpart, Quadragisimo Anno, to point out the role of nationhood ignored by Leo XIII.

[johnqueuepublic]

Anything is possible, the rift consisted of much more than the insertion of the filioquim into the Nicene Creed, it had to do with papal authority and Im sure a bunch of other stuff that seemed important at the time.

[johnqueuepublic]

Buchanan firmly supports the Tridentine Mass, Pope Leo was pretty active politcally in Italy, not familiar with that particular piece, thanks for suggesting it, will check it out.

[annalex]

misrepresenting the Orthodox view of the divinity of Jesus Christ.

I believe you are right. The "filoque" was objected to by the Orthodox not because of a perceived defective Christology, but because it was a substantial edit of the original creed, that Rome undertook on its own. The objection to the very notion that the Creed could be altered allowed the Orthodox church to position itself as just that, orthodox.

[maryz]

Michael Rose, in Goodbye! Good Men" researched the topic. Fr. Richard John Neuhaus of First Things read the book, and says, "Rose names names, and I have checked with people familiar with some of the incidents he recounts. It seems that his reports are generally reliable, but, even if the situation in vocation offices and seminaries is only half as bad as he suggests, it is very bad indeed."

[johnqueuepublic]

That the Catholic Medical Association was moved to warn about what was going on in the seminaries underlines the seriousness of the situation.

[Campion]

a bunch of people said that that statement gives them the right to torture and murder people who refuse to bend their knee in submission to some guy in a pointy hat?

This is, of course, distinct from the situation in which a fat guy with syphilis said, "I want your body, baby", followed by a bunch of stuffy English aristocrats announcing that said fat guy was "Supreme Head of the Church in England" ... thereby giving them the right to torture and murder people who refused to bend the knee in submission to said fat guy and his pals. See, they were Protestants, and you can just denounce them as "not true Christians" and neatly evade taking any responsibility for them killing Catholics by the hundreds. OTOH, the people you're talking about were Catholics, and you fully intend to hold the Catholic Church corporately responsible for their behavior.

How convenient.

[yendu bwam]

Out of this concern over the “grief’s and anxieties of the men of this age" Catholicism has come very close to substituting the worship of man for the worship of God.

This by far, I believe, is the greatest danger of our times. When we decide that we can alter the family structure into anything at all, when we decide that we know when it is best to kill unborn babies (and now even born ones), when we decide that we should tamper with the genetic code to create new forms of life, when we decide that old age is subject to a human judgment of worthiness, when we decide that sex is to be revered in any bizarre and dangerous form for only the momentary release it brings, when we decide that any spiritual belief is as good as any other, when we devote our lives to wealth, health and new experiences, and when we teach our children to think of themselves first, we have made man God. The Catholic Church in many places has taken several fateful steps into this miasmic sea, but is still hopefully close to God's shore. Many other faiths are drowning in the love of man ocean. It will take strength, courage, a true love of God and faith in Him to make sure that the Catholic Church returns completely to God's land.

[annalex]

A more substantive disagreement from the Christology point of view was the absence of original sin in the Virgin Mary. I heard the Orthodox consider that as taking away from the fully human (as well as fully divine) nature of Christ.

[johnqueuepublic]

I fully agree.

Examine the handling of Libertion Theology by the Church as an additional point of concern.

[yendu bwam]

The problem is not Vatican II, which was a Council of the Church like all the rest. The problem is that the liberals kidnapped the Church AFTER Vatican II. If you listen carefully, you will hear the liberals and dissenters talk about the "spirit of Vatican II." They seldom or never actually cite the documents of the council, but instead raise issues like contraception, abortion, women priests, married priests, horrible music, destruction of churches, etc., etc., which were never even mentioned at the council, let alone set down in the official documents.

There is a lot of truth in this statement. If the Church were to simply adhere to what was acutally decided at Vatican II, it would be a vastly better Church today than it is. The thing is, Vatican II allowed for a bit of freedom - and then people ran far, far, far with it. It's time to reel them in.

[johnqueuepublic]

I wonder if our political disputes today will be looked upon as being as arcane as this stuff is, 1000 years from now?

At some point it becomes the classical discussion of the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

[johnqueuepublic]

Pope John XXIII called the council and was not alive to manage it, I kinda see an analogy between this and reconstruction after the Civil War.

I also think the parallels the author raises between what was happening in the church and in society is important, they are the same forces operating towards a common goal.