Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Tradition 24 Hours a Day: Msgr.( Sweeney Succumbs To Liberal Elite
Wall Street Journal ^ | 28 December 2001 | Tom Bethell

Posted on 12/29/2001 12:11:30 AM PST by shrinkermd

Edited on 04/22/2004 11:45:49 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Our Lady of Peace Church, just over Highway 101 from Intel Corp.'s headquarters in Santa Clara, Calif., is one of the more remarkable Catholic churches that I have attended in America since coming here from Britain too many decades ago.


(Excerpt) Read more at interactive.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: catholiclist
As a "primitive Protestant, " I find this article fascinating. Msgr. Sweeney's mistake he is leading too many average, working people to Christ. This is much the same criticism that evangelical Christians are familiar with.
1 posted on 12/29/2001 12:11:30 AM PST by shrinkermd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
I wish Msgr Sweeney lived in Ct.
2 posted on 12/29/2001 12:11:32 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
You're absolutely right. Conservative Catholics and evangelicals have a great deal more in common than their respective churches often like to admit. We American Catholics are too often confronted with a hierarchy that is liberal, non-traditionalist, and more concerned with wealth redistribution than, say, stopping abortion.

IMHO, the Second Vatican Council was a grave error. Not just for abandoning the physical and ritual trappings of the past 2000 years (though that was criminal in itself), but for the doctrinal confusion it created (for example, suggesting -- without quite saying -- that perhaps some people make it to heaven without Christ). The logical end result of this is what's happening to Fr Sweeny, condemned for actually mentioning hell(!) in a sermon. In this sense, I envy the evangelicals and fundamentalists for the clarity (if not always the content) of their doctrine. The American Catholic church could learn a great deal from this example.

Now, please tell me what exactly a "primitive" Protestant is. Is this the same as the "Primitive Baptist Church" signs I see by the roadside?

3 posted on 12/29/2001 12:11:36 AM PST by silmaril
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
Success: find a need and fill it.
4 posted on 12/29/2001 12:11:37 AM PST by Malesherbes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Catholic_list; ELS; Proud2bRC
Catholic_list bump

For a list of bump alias click: Free Republic Bump List Register

5 posted on 12/29/2001 12:11:37 AM PST by Incorrigible
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
One of the reasons I left the "Left Coast" and returned to New Jersey was that I didn't feel like I was actually practicing Catholicism there.
6 posted on 12/29/2001 12:11:38 AM PST by Incorrigible
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
Thank God I live where you can still find parishes with priests such as Msgr Sweeney. Here's praying he can continue his mission. If not, let him move out here to the Heartland where he will be embraced.
7 posted on 12/29/2001 12:11:43 AM PST by Corporate Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Incorrigible
Thanks for the bump. The WSJ seems downright Catholic lately. Its a wonderful thing to see this kind of pressure brought to bear on Msgr. Sweeney's bishop by a publication of no less a stature than the WSJ.

If this parish were anywhere in my diocese, I would attend it.

My own parish has the only Perpetual Adoration chapel in my diocese (well, its not exactly Perpetual...my pastor says our own bishop frowns upon perpetual adoration. If we had 24/7 adoration, canonically we'd have to have the bishop's approval. My pastor's solution? "We just won't do it on Sunday. That way its not "perpetual" so we won't have to ask...")

God Bless Msgr. Sweeney. I pray the exposure this WSJ article gets will put pressure on the good bishop to do the right thing.

8 posted on 12/29/2001 12:12:32 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
I enjoy the learned posts here but I think the problem is much simpler that some seem to see it. Bishop McGrath is a wimp who is giving in to the political correctness of our time and of that area. Some priests and bishops are just as interested in attending the chic cocktail parties and social functions as Washington journalists. Getting those invitations requires a high degree of liberal political correctness. After all, they don't want to seem uncaring to the local glitteroty.
9 posted on 12/29/2001 12:13:44 AM PST by Mind-numbed Robot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proud2bRC
I wish the WSJ luck. You may be on to something here though. Our Bishops do seem more attentive to the secular press than they do to their duties. Now, if only the N.Y. Times would write favorably about this situation.....
10 posted on 12/29/2001 12:13:46 AM PST by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
Thank you very much for posting this! I drive 30 miles one way to attend Our Lady of Peace (OLOP) every Sunday just so I can get away from the moral rot of the parish in Morgan Hill.

Let me tell you this place is special. Just as the story says, there is perpetual adoration and has been for something like 30 years. There are priests in the confessional before every mass, and lines to get in too. There is a communion rail where an actual priest gives you communion with an alter boy holding a plate to prevent any chance of the body of our Lord falling to the floor. What I did not see mentioned in the article is that the 7:30 PM Saturday masses are in Latin, traditional on the first Saturday of the month and Novus Ordo on the other Saturdays.

I do find the steel statues of Our Lady a bit on the gaudy side. There are actually two statues, a large one visible from the highway and a smaller copy in a courtyard next to the church. People are always at the shrine praying and saying rosaries. The statue in the courtyard is always surrounded by fresh flowers.

Every mass I have been to has been well attended. Even with no obligation, the parking lot will be filled for weekday evening mass.

The parish is a leader in the pro-life movement in the area. Routinely the evil of abortion is condemned from the pulpit and we are reminded of our responsibility to fight against abortion. We are invited to join regular protests lead by the priests at abortion clinics.

A couple months ago I began attending the young adult group meetings with a lively group of orthodox young Catholics. While I have never heard an ill word spoken of the bishop, only prayers for his health and God granted wisdom, I still sense much trepidation about what will happen when Monsignor Sweeney retires and who will be sent to replace him. If someone is appointed who does not cherish all of the wonderful traditions that makes OLOP the special place that it is I will be heart broken.

11 posted on 12/29/2001 12:15:02 AM PST by Flying Circus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
BUMP for a good and holy Monsignor!
12 posted on 12/29/2001 12:15:13 AM PST by BlessedBeGod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flying Circus
Praise God for sending us good and holy priests like this one. Amen.

bump

13 posted on 12/29/2001 12:17:33 AM PST by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: silmaril
First of all, there is no "American Catholic Church." We Americans seem to be of the mind that because we are a distinct nation, we have a distinct claim on the Catholic religion. This is not true. It would be more correct to say that the Catholicism in America has a distinct American flavor but it has not - so far - broken with the Holy See in Rome.

And you say that Vatican II was a mistake!!! This in itself shows the American idea of "rugged individualism" seeping in. Just who are we to say that the Holy Spirit can make a mistake when He leads the teachers of the Church - the Bishops, not the theologians - to call a council? One of those documents produced at Vatican II was called Dei Verbum and it states in Atricle 8, "Thus God who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the spouse of His Beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."

While we may prefer a different type of liturgy than the modern one celebrated in most American parishes, there still exist provision for those who prefer the Tridentine or Novus Ordo Masses. If you believe that error came out of the documents of Vatican II, then you do not believe in the dogma of the infallibility of the Church. The Church has NEVER taught that one can enter heaven other than through Jesus Christ for this would be against what Jesus Himself says, "I am the way and the truth and the life" and "No one can come to the Father except through me." Most Catholics I have spoken with who have a problem with Vatican II have never actually read the documents. I must add that this includes those pastors and priests who then went on to commit the most horrible "modernizations" and doing so, they claimed, "in the spirit of Vatican II." I have seen some craziness myself but I prefer to hear the beautiful eucharistic prayer in my native tongue.

Msgr. Sweeny seems like a treasure of a priest but I think he might disagree that Vatican II was a mistake. If he is being persecuted (which it sounds like he is) then he knows that this is one of the greatest joys of the Christian - to suffer for our faith in Christ. I am sure that he does so with joy in his heart while still retaining his love for his nay-sayers. If he is true to this calling of Christ's - to take up his cross and follow Him daily - then we should rejoice with him as St. Paul did for having been found worthy to suffer for the sake of Christ.

14 posted on 12/29/2001 12:17:36 AM PST by paxtecum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: paxtecum
Although I can't really speak for Silmaril, I think what he was trying to say was that the mistake of Vatican II (if you can call it that) springs from the application of Vatican II in the Catholic Church. The reason for dwindling numbers is that people are being less and less presented with unapologetic truth -- isntead, the rank and file priests rarely take a stand on any issue - be it moral or theological. Some people favor this approach, saying that the "old way" was just a bunch of fear-mongering that alienated many people and made them feel uncomfortable. Well, we've tried it their way for 30 years now, and look where it's gotten us.

IMO, we need more priests like this, telling it like it is. I have never, in my 26 years, ever heard a priest remind the congregation that missing a single Mass can send an individual to Hell for eternity. And with the changes in the reception of Christ, we have basically lost our outward show of respect and recognition that the Eucharist is indeed Christ -- and this has led to an increased sentiment of doubt among parishioners that the wafer is indeed Christ, body blood, soul and divinity.

It's no surprise that the vast majority of Catholic fervent faith is to be found in Church's that offer Tridentine rite masses, and also in seminaries that produce Latin rite priests. When you water down truth, people get watered down as well -- and unfortunately, although it isn't the fault of Vat II, it's the fault of those who have used it as a wedge to infect their satanic influence into the Church, it has led to a damaging effect in the Catholic Church.

15 posted on 12/29/2001 8:16:07 PM PST by Proud2BAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Proud2BAmerican
I think that words are important and that the way we use our words affects how people receive our message. I am absolutely in agreement with you that the faith is being watered down but I will absolutely protest that it was done because of Vatican II. I have read these documents and can find no evidence within them that would lead me to believe that they caused grave error. It was like I said, priests and pastors used the term "aggiornamento" to mean whatever they wanted it to mean and introduced all kinds of craziness into the Mass.

I went to a liturgy conference last year in which I heard it said that even people who were living outside of sacramental unions (i.e. living together) should be allowed to receive the Eucharist! This conference was sponsored by my diocese. And while I believe 100% that this conference was flawed and fallible, an ecumenical council cannot be because the Holy Spirit will never allow the Church to deceive or be deceived.

16 posted on 12/29/2001 8:42:34 PM PST by paxtecum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
I went to Our Lady of Peace for the first time on Christmas day. Its not the closest church to me by far, but it was the only one that had evening Mass on Christmas day (at least two, no less. I was defintitely impressed and will make an effort to go again. I don't think Msgr. Sweeney was the celebrant, but I didn't hear the name of the priest.
17 posted on 12/29/2001 9:00:45 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paxtecum
It was like I said, priests and pastors used the term "aggiornamento" to mean whatever they wanted it to mean and introduced all kinds of craziness into the Mass.

----

This is the sentiment I would agree with, and I suspect it's what Silmaril had intended -- or something along those lines.

I think a lot of modern Catholics tend to use knee-jerk phrases like "inquisition" and "fear of excommunication" to discredit authentic Church teaching (i.e. - "You can't tell people in the pews they're going to hell! That would be insensitive, and in the long term, would end up alienating so many people. We need to encourage people with love and understanding, etc. etc.") But I think we've seen the fruits of this approach -- when priests are wussy and equivocate on morality and theology and the necessity of teh Sacraments for Salvation, then people leave. Because if what you're offering isn't essential, crucial to someone's eternal soul, then what motivation is there to be at Mass? For the donuts? For teh singing? Sorry, Protestants got us beat on both counts there.

18 posted on 12/29/2001 9:41:28 PM PST by Proud2BAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Proud2BAmerican
Thank you for clarifying the point you were making. I took a class in Theology called "Modern Challenges to Christianity" and in it we discussed the many problems facing the Church in this Post-Christian age. One of the lessons I learned is that Catholics who dissent from the magesterial teachings of the Church are known as "heretics." When was the last time you heard that word used in a homily or in a Bishop's encyclical?

Political Correctness is raging in the Church right now especially in my field, which is liturgy. Example...Remember that beautiful old hymn "Where Charity and Love Prevail" (aka Ubi Caritas)? It used to be printed as "...With grateful joy and holy fear, God's charity we learn; Let us with heart and mind and soul Now love Him in return." That last line has been changed to read "Now love God in return." There are feminists within the Church who are trying to say that we can't even use the personal pronouns "him," "his," or "He" to refer to God because that makes the implication that God is male in Gender. DDUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHH!!!! The whole idea of inclusive language delayed the English edition of the Catechism for almost a year and a half because it had to be re-translated to correct all the political correctness.

What did Pope Paul VI call it, "the smoke of satan?" I agree that there is this smoke within the Church but I believe that behind all the smoke and mirrors you'll find the living and true faith handed down to us from the Apostles. This will include the Second Vatican Council.

P.S. Did you know that in those documents it lists, among other things, that the Latin language should be retained in the Latin rite, there should be no women serving at the altar and communion in the hand should be preceded by another type of reverence such as a genuflection? Veils were not thrown out by these documents and neither were communion rails. The question is, How do you get people to return to the traditional ways when those ways have been slowly "vaccinated out" of existence?

I thank God for the traditional masses and the traditional priests like Msgr. Sweeny. I know of several here in Houston, too, so we must never give up hope. The smoke will clear very soon. In this, I have the strongest faith.

19 posted on 12/30/2001 1:00:36 PM PST by paxtecum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: paxtecum; Proud2BAmerican
I think Proud2BAmerican has covered some of my points already, so, since I'm joining this late, I'll confine myself to a few specifics:

First of all, there is no "American Catholic Church."

Hm....the Catholic Church is in America. There is a conference of American bishops. There is a culturally distinct "American" Catholicism. I'm not making an organizational or doctrinal reference; I think you may be reading too much into the phrase.

And you say that Vatican II was a mistake!!!

I can date many of the Church's current problems from Vatican II, yes. The loss of institutional identity; the abandonment of norms; the obscuring of clarity of mission; and all the problems flowing from that, from declining Mass attendance to chronic vocational shortages. You can defend the Council simply on the grounds that the Holy Spirit will not err; but I reply that whatever the Spirit's intentions, the subsequent human application of them has been disastrous.

If you believe that error came out of the documents of Vatican II, then you do not believe in the dogma of the infallibility of the Church.

Hm. I'm no theologian or expert in canon law, but it's my understanding that there is doctrine, and there are rules. Doctrine is the Virgin Birth, Papal Infallibility, et al.; rules are priestly celibacy and nuns' habits. You don't mess with doctrine, but you may civilly disagree with (so long as you do not disobey) rules. The language of the Mass falls into the latter category, as I recall. And I disagree. One language -- Latin -- for every Mass everywhere, as befits a universal Church.

The Church has NEVER taught that one can enter heaven other than through Jesus Christ....

The Church did, I believe, disavow the slogan "No salvation outside the Church." I applaud the Vatican's tentative reaffirmation of this tenet in the past year, but its flustered defensiveness in the face of the resultant criticism was disheartening.

20 posted on 12/31/2001 7:16:50 AM PST by silmaril
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: silmaril
Happy New Year! I hope you don't mind me continuing this thread in a new year but something you wrote has me thinking...I can date many of the Church's current problems from Vatican II, yes. The loss of institutional identity; the abandonment of norms; the obscuring of clarity of mission; and all the problems flowing from that, from declining Mass attendance to chronic vocational shortages. These are all definitely modern challenges to the Church but I don't think they are all directly attributable to the Second Vatican Council. What about modern challenges like the advances in science which tend to undermine instead of uphold faith in God? What about the crisis in the human spirit that evolves out of the nuclear age? What about the acceptance by society at-large of many lifestyles or life-choices that were once considered abhorrent e.g. abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia? WHat about the dangers of materialism in our wealthy modern world? I think that all these things have contributed to the problems you cite, some more than others, but to lay it all at the feet of the Second Vatican Council is to scapegoat what was otherwise a wonderful gathering of the Church's leaders.

You can defend the Council simply on the grounds that the Holy Spirit will not err; but I reply that whatever the Spirit's intentions, the subsequent human application of them has been disastrous. I agree with what you say that some of the applications have been disastrous but I believe that it is impossible to go against the "intentions" of God the Holy Spirit when He allows to be convened an ecumenical council and that council, with His help, leads them to write the documents that then came out of that council. The Holy Spirit's intentions will come through even if we have to go through an extended period of testing first. Historically, with most ecumenical councils, it takes an average of 40 years for the truth to shine forth in all its splendor.

Is there a specific document or part of a document that you find objectionable? Otherwise, if we are just talking in generalities, we can fall prey to the same error that we are criticizing. From what you wrote, we seem to agree that things were interpreted by individuals incorrectly. (Part of the document stated that the Latin language should be retained in the Latin rite and that no females should serve at the altar a la female acolytes and that communion should be received with an outward show of reverence first.)

P.S. This is not a confrontational reply. I am curious as to your concerns since I am a teacher of theology and it helps to know why people think the way they do. Be assured of my respect for you and my gratitude that you are so traditional-minded. We need more people who think this way to stand up in the face of the loss of the faith by many Catholics.

21 posted on 01/01/2002 8:39:00 PM PST by paxtecum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: paxtecum
Since you teach theology, you must understand that I am speaking from a layperson's perspective....I have read Bokenkotter's books, and a few miscellaneous tracts, and that's mostly it. I am therefore comparatively ignorant.

These are all definitely modern challenges to the Church but I don't think they are all directly attributable to the Second Vatican Council. What about modern challenges like....

Perhaps I am being harsh in solely blaming Vatican II. However, I think there is a lot of evidence to suggest that adherence to orthodoxy is a far better response to modernism than its partial abandonment. My personal background is Catholic, but I went to a Baptist college, and my father is Orthodox. In looking at the fundamentalist and evangelical Protestants, and at the Orthodox, I cannot help but notice the contrast between the general vitality (and burgeoning growth) of these congregations, as opposed to the too-often staid and stagnant Catholic parishes I've been to. (As a disclaimer, my current parish is really pretty good.) My conclusion -- anecdotal, to be sure -- is that their rigorous adherence to their respective orthodoxies renders them beacons of clarity and certainty, and hence attractive to those who seek religious experience. It makes me sad and sometimes ashamed to see the Catholic Church as an institution afraid to act with the same self-confidence and righteousness. (When the Church issued its tentative reaffirmation of exclusively Christian salvation last year, and was met with criticism from within the Church, one of my Protestant friends asked, "Why is this even controversial? I don't get it." And I had no good answer.)

So, is Vatican II responsible for all the Church's problems? No. But it is primarily responsible for the Church's feeble responses to those problems. A priest I knew once remarked that "It's not the Church's duty to conform to the times, but the times's duty to conform to the Church." Vatican II very much seems like a case of the former.

Is there a specific document or part of a document that you find objectionable? Otherwise, if we are just talking in generalities, we can fall prey to the same error that we are criticizing.

Well, perhaps I am falling prey to that error. I know little of the specific documents. I only know that the following things were lost with Vatican II:

Latin Mass (not an aesthetic preference, but a real expression of the universal Church).
The rigid moral control exercised by the Church over its parishoners and priests.
The vocal insistence on "no salvation outside the Church."

It's not a long list, but it's a disastrous one.

(Part of the document stated that the Latin language should be retained in the Latin rite and that no females should serve at the altar a la female acolytes and that communion should be received with an outward show of reverence first.)

You're kidding. Really? And it's been ignored....unbelievable.

I am curious as to your concerns since I am a teacher of theology and it helps to know why people think the way they do.

Well, I appreciate the opportunity to rant.

22 posted on 01/02/2002 5:01:45 AM PST by silmaril
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: silmaril
Thanks for your thoughts. It's not a rant really and I admit I get a tad bit defensive but I am used to defending the faith to evangelicals who claim they had to leave the Church to find salvation. Like you, I have to say...UNBELIEVABLE!

In looking at the fundamentalist and evangelical Protestants, and at the Orthodox, I cannot help but notice the contrast between the general vitality (and burgeoning growth) of these congregations, as opposed to the too-often staid and stagnant Catholic parishes I've been to. I have witnessed RCIA gatherings with the Bishop that have included hundreds of candidates, many of them converts from other faiths. We are still growing, maybe not as fast in America as in other countries such as South Africa and Southeast Asia but the Church is not lacking in members. I understand about wanting that same vitality but you have to remember that the Church is the oldest Christian denomination in the world. If we have grown a little relaxed and comfortable, I think that's understandable. You tend to relax a little when you realize that God is keeping His promises after all these centuries. Our current Pope, however, shares your concerns and is calling for a New Evangelization in the industrialized nations of the world, especially within families and parishes. Now is the time to make your concerns known.

A new General Instruction to the Roman Missal is about to be issued (your diocese may already have it) which will help the pastors all get back on the same page. If you are not already on it, you might check with your parish's liturgy committee (or if your parish doesn't have one of those, with the Pastor) to see when it will be implemented.

It is very heartening to me to see that,while you may not agree with everything going on within the Church, you have not walked out of her. I will pray for you and ask your prayers for me, too.

BTW, I like your screen name. Are you a big Lord of the Rings/Tolkein fan?

23 posted on 01/02/2002 9:27:53 PM PST by paxtecum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
Thought you might wanna see this...
24 posted on 01/02/2002 9:33:47 PM PST by austinTparty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: austinTparty; patent; antoninus; dumb_ox; romulus; eastsider; goetz von berlichingen; proud2bRC
Thank you very much. I shall circulate it on what email lists of faithful Catholics I belong. If nothing else, perhaps we can provide sufficient support to the congregation that they will ensure the good father's legacy lives on.

I am struck by the retirement ... a priest at my own parish was asked to stay on well past his 75th birthday.

Thanks, austinTparty.

25 posted on 01/03/2002 12:41:08 AM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: paxtecum
We are still growing, maybe not as fast in America as in other countries such as South Africa and Southeast Asia but the Church is not lacking in members.

In truth, I envy those other countries. When I lived in Brooklyn, we went to an old, old parish (same one Al Capone was married in) with a great history, gorgeous architecture, and virtually no parishoners. Of our three priests, one we had to import from Nigeria, and the other from Japan. They were good priests (particularly the Nigerian), but it just made me cringe to think that, in this old Italian neighborhood that was surely 70% Catholic, we had to look to more vital overseas dioceses for our clergy.

I understand about wanting that same vitality but you have to remember that the Church is the oldest Christian denomination in the world.

Ha. I'm laughing because I can just imagine my Orthodox father's reaction to that statement.

Our current Pope, however, shares your concerns and is calling for a New Evangelization in the industrialized nations of the world....

Thank God.

It is very heartening to me to see that,while you may not agree with everything going on within the Church, you have not walked out of her.

Well, it ain't a buffet I can pick and choose from, is it? ;-)

I will pray for you and ask your prayers for me, too.

You got it. Thanks.

BTW, I like your screen name. Are you a big Lord of the Rings/Tolkein fan?

I am. I read LOTR when I was 8, and while it's not the quasi-religious text for me that it is for others, it was still a seminal event in my childhood, and I like it a great deal.

26 posted on 01/03/2002 5:16:53 AM PST by silmaril
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: silmaril
And you say that Vatican II was a mistake!!!
I can date many of the Church's current problems from Vatican II, yes. The loss of institutional identity; the abandonment of norms; the obscuring of clarity of mission; and all the problems flowing from that, from declining Mass attendance to chronic vocational shortages. You can defend the Council simply on the grounds that the Holy Spirit will not err; but I reply that whatever the Spirit's intentions, the subsequent human application of them has been disastrous.
If you were to look at things a little more closely you would date many of the problems farther back then that. Most of the things we face today were starting well before the Council. Speaking from experience (I have done this far to often) blaming the Council is a simplistic argument that many traditionalists like to use, but like most simplistic things it is at best partially true. Life is messier then that.

It is true that the liberals have hung their hats on the Council and distorted it to great gain, something they would not have been able to do in the absence of the Council, but in order for this to be true there had to be liberals in the first place, they had to be in positions of power, and they had to be organized and already working on things.

The Council gave them an opportunity, and likely made things easier for them, but they were already moving. As hard as things are today, we are already moving back - as often happens after a Council.

The Church has NEVER taught that one can enter heaven other than through Jesus Christ....
The Church did, I believe, disavow the slogan "No salvation outside the Church."
No, it didn’t. From the Catechism:
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? 335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. 336
In response to Fr. Feeney the Church explicitly clarified the saying (previous Popes had implicitly clarified it) and excommunicated him for his refusal to stop preaching his stilted reading of the doctrine. Note: this all occurred well before Vatican II.

Dominus Vobiscum

patent  +AMDG

27 posted on 01/03/2002 7:02:32 AM PST by patent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
Thanks for the bump. Its bad enough that the confirmation was as scandalous as it was. Losing a priest like this would be inexecusable.

patent

28 posted on 01/03/2002 7:04:28 AM PST by patent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: patent
It is true that the liberals have hung their hats on the Council and distorted it to great gain, something they would not have been able to do in the absence of the Council....

Well, exactly. The preexistence of the liberals is neither here nor there, really. The fact remains, as you pointed out, that there is this Church Council that validates them. And that's tragic. For your argument to work, you essentially have to downplay the import of that Council, and play up the import of this faction. I think that's getting it backwards.

As for the Catechism statements, I appreciate your posting them, and I'm glad to read them. However, my point about the Church's institutional timorousness on this point still stands.

29 posted on 01/03/2002 7:17:58 AM PST by silmaril
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: patent
It is true that the liberals have hung their hats on the Council and distorted it to great gain, something they would not have been able to do in the absence of the Council....

Well, exactly. The preexistence of the liberals is neither here nor there, really. The fact remains, as you pointed out, that there is this Church Council that validates them. And that's tragic. For your argument to work, you essentially have to downplay the import of that Council, and play up the import of this faction. I think that's getting it backwards.

As for the Catechism statements, I appreciate your posting them, and I'm glad to read them. However, my point about the Church's institutional timorousness on this point still stands.

30 posted on 01/03/2002 7:18:10 AM PST by silmaril
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: silmaril
Well, exactly. The preexistence of the liberals is neither here nor there, really. The fact remains, as you pointed out, that there is this Church Council that validates them. And that's tragic. For your argument to work, you essentially have to downplay the import of that Council, and play up the import of this faction. I think that's getting it backwards
No, the Council does not validate them and that is not what I pointed out. What I pointed out is that the fact of a Council happening gave them an opportunity to say things changed. They lied. Repeatedly. Even when caught they keep right on spinning and lieing. You would almost thing our Church liberals taught Clinton.

We have two possible responses. We can skip reading the Counciliar documents and just accept what the liberals say about them. This is the option you are choosing. Even worse we can keep repeating their mantra that the Council mandated this or that. But I challenge you, as I challenge them when it comes up, to find a source for whatever is bugging you about modernist liberal Catholicism in the documents of Vatican II.

Don’t like the altar girls? That’s not called for in VII. Don’t like the vernacular? Vatican II indicates Latin is to retain the primacy of place in the liturgy. Don’t like guitar music at Mass? VII indicates Gregorian Chant is the music, followed by polyphony, not guitar. I could go on all day.

The second possible response is to stop trusting what liberals and schismatics say about Vatican II. Consider reading the documents (click here), always a wise course (whether it be Papal encyclicals or Council documents, your faith will be enriched the more you read). Read and judge for yourself. Then you will be prepared to refute the idea that the Council validates the liberal ideas. Or simply ask your next liberal that makes that claim for a quote. That is always fun.

patent  +AMDG

31 posted on 01/03/2002 7:34:24 AM PST by patent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: patent
No, the Council does not validate them and that is not what I pointed out.

You several times pointed out that the liberals used the Council to support them; falsely or not isn't the issue, I merely used "validate" in the sense that it was a tool. I believe you that they distort and lie.

We can skip reading the Counciliar documents and just accept what the liberals say about them. This is the option you are choosing.

Hm....look, I'm clearly guilty of not having read the documents, and of trusting what local leaders have told me. But give me credit for disagreeing with their spin.

Thank you, though for the links.

32 posted on 01/03/2002 8:34:43 AM PST by silmaril
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
This is just the sort of priest the Church can ill afford to lose... Age, as is proven by the tenure of the popes, is no indication of ability to lead spiritually.

Indeed, the priest who officiated at my wedding was 75 at the time and is one of the most physically and spiritually vigorous men I have ever known. He's officially "retired" now at 86, but still celebrates mass at various locations in Paris, and I make it a point to attend his services whenever I am there. In fact, I even travelled there to have my daughter baptized 2 years ago... I wish there were many more like him and the priest mentioned in this article.

33 posted on 01/03/2002 10:22:26 AM PST by austinTparty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
Msgr. Sweeny's last Mass as pastor will be on July 14th. There is a banquet honoring Msgr. Sweeny this Saturday, June 29th. Tickets are still available, although maybe not after tomorrow morning. Those interested should calle the rectory at (408)988-4585.
34 posted on 06/24/2002 6:02:50 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ELS
ping
35 posted on 06/25/2002 11:42:18 AM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson