Posted on 12/21/2011 2:15:10 PM PST by NYer
His heirs did. Scholasticism sparked the nominalist reaction that led to the Protestant Revolution.
Vatican II can get some of the blame for not standing in the way of liberalism, but it was a train that had already left the station by 1962 when the council opened.
The New Theologians only borrowed and counterfeited selected Eastern traditions of the East to use for eradicating traditions of the West. Perhaps now that the West has been humiliated, it will show more respect toward the East.
Well the train needs to be put back into the station.
I doubt that future Catholics will hold the Vatican II vandals in the same level of esteem that we now hold the Angelic Doctor.
Nominalists were diametrically opposed to Aquinas. Thomism is the antidote for the raging nominalist subjectivism we still suffer.
I know, but Thomism opened the door to the nominalist reaction to the incorporation of Aristotelianism into the Catholic faith.
Thomism places God’s actions into definable categories, which Eastern Christians see as its Achilles’ Heel. It resulted in a stark separation of theology from spirituality, which is why St. Gregory Palamas resisted its introduction into the East in the 14th century.
The Nominalists went off course in their ignorant reaction and made matters even worse.
A theologian is one who prays and who knows God beyond a simple superficial level.
The traditions of the Western Church liturgically and otherwise were once closer to those of the East, but drifted apart under the influence of Scholasticism.
The Lenten fast from dairy products for example. The abandonment of baptism by immersion, etc.
Thomism is very powerful and anything powerful can be misused, but has placing God’s actions into definable categories proven to be erroneous? Was Palamas mainly concerned about the potential for misuse or did he suspect that Thomism itself harbored error?
Or did Palamas’ Byzantine mysticism restrain him from “defining” Thomism to that degree? I have heard Westerners complain that the East “never defines anything.”
Now that the Aristotelian cat is out of the bag, is a return to pre-Thomistic theology even possible or must we forge ahead using Thomism to slay the ruinous, mind-bending subjectivists?
St. Gregory Palamas saw in the persons of Barlaam of Calabria and Aikdynknos a slide into rationalism.
The Greek fathers say that God is beyond our understanding.
I think the Eastern rebuttal would be that the Scholastics’ desire to define everything reduced God to being a creature subject to human reason. That is why Eastern Christianity is aphophatic.
You should read Vladimir Lossky’s “Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church” to get an understanding better than I could ever give. Lossky is very familiar with Thomism, so he provides an elucidating critique that is free from polemics.
Pre-Thomistic Catholicism is alive and well among Eastern Christians, both Catholic and Orthodox.
Western atheism is a creature of the Scholastic notion that human reason can explain everything. Eastern Christians take the opposite attitude.
This tradition is fine for the East, but the manipation of this concept by modernists has resulted in trickling sanctuary fountain-bathtubs that have no place in our tradition. Would you want to see Eastern modernists banish the alter-shielding icons so to be in sync with the West? Our pre-1960s traditions were organic, just like yours.
Then you concede three. Ok.
1, We’re not in the Papal states, anymore.
2, Are you required to be a member of the Catholic church to be saved? Doesn’t seem to me to be the case.
“You stated that you believe the Pope was wrong.”
Really? Where?
{{{CRICKETS}}}
{{{CRICKETS}}}
{{{CRICKETS}}}
{{{CRICKETS}}}
{{{CRICKETS}}}
You accept Vatican II in it’s entirety? Yes or no?
Ping for later
LOL, how about you admitting that you were not truthful about what I said? Just like you have been inaccurate about what Bp. Fellay has said and so much more here. Is the ability to admit error as foreign to you as it seems?
“You stated that you believe the Pope was wrong.”
Really? Where?
{{{CRICKETS}}}
{{{CRICKETS}}}
{{{CRICKETS}}}
{{{CRICKETS}}}
{{{CRICKETS}}}
{{{CRICKETS}}}
This tradition is fine for the East, but the manipation of this concept by modernists has resulted in trickling sanctuary fountain-bathtubs that have no place in our tradition. Would you want to see Eastern modernists banish the alter-shielding icons so to be in sync with the West? Our pre-1960s traditions were organic, just like yours.
>>We had them. They were/are called Latinizers. People like Archbishop Nicholas Elko threw out the icon screens from many parishes and replaced the Holy Tables with Latin-style high altars.
Baptism by immersion is theologically more correct because it signifies dying and rising with Christ through baptism.
It was a universal custom that the Latin Church unilaterally changed. I’m not about to question the validity of baptism by aspersion, but my opinion is that it should the extraordinary form for baptism reserved for the sick, elderly, etc.
Not to mention, the Church of Milan has never baptised by any manner other than immersion.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01394a.htm
The implementation of the liturgical reforms following the Second Vatican Council were terribly done.
There are plenty of pre-Tridentine liturgical materials still in circulation.
What the Council of Trent bequeathed was a rather paired down version of the medieval Roman rite.
How about answering the question.
Do you agree with Vatican II?
Yes or no, sir?
I read through all the documents of Vatican II after they came out. I didn’t find anything that was heretical or plain wrong.
I think we need to observe the distinction that was made in early days between Vatican II and “the spirit of Vatican II.” Liberal dissidents started running around proclaiming a lot of heresies, but those heresies were not actually based on anything in Vatican II. They were based on what the liberals PRETENDED Vatican II had declared.
Similarly, many liturgical changes were NOT mandated by Vatican II, but were produced by persons who took advantage of the Council to put forward their own ideas. For instance, Vatican II did not say that the Mass had to be said in the vernacular. That was the brainstorm of the liturgists and others.
The Church teaches that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, or when there is an official Council of the Church, the Holy Ghost will protect it from heresy or serious error.
But there is no promise that all councils will be equally valuable. Some Councils, such as Nicea or Trent, were extremely important. Other councils accomplished relatively little. The only promise is that there will be no actual heresy.
My take on Vatican II is that it was not a very helpful council. Perhaps it was even counterproductive, although it is far too early to be sure of that. But nothing was officially promulgated that was heretical.
SSPX thinks differently. But I think they are mistaken. It has been some time since I reviewed their complaints and matched them against the documents, but I did not find that the complaints were justified.
Personally, I would prefer a return to the Tridentine Mass. I find the Novus Ordo less satisfying, although there is nothing actually heretical about it. The closest it came was to say translate that Christ’s blood was shed “pro multis” as “for all.” That, happily, has now been corrected. Although I would love to attend the Tridentine Mass, however, I could not justify doing so with priests who are in a state of schism with the Church.
Well I don’t really feel it’s my place to criticise the Ordo, especially given that I am a recent convert. My place is to take the Church as she is, for better or for worse.
I do agree with you that the liturgical excesses are troublesome, but the response of Benedict has been pretty stark to fix the problems rather then letting them fester.
Anyways, blessings to you. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.