Cardinal George:…we’re back to the Protestant Reformation

The title is somewhat out of context, but certainly not entirely. Read the entire article, Cardinal George seems to recognize that Vatican II had certain unintended consequences that have not been good for the Faith.

Last year, the mostly lay Archdiocesan Pastoral Council asked the Presbyteral Council to consider how the homily at Mass might be used to deepen lay people’s understanding of some contested mysteries of faith. The request arose during a discussion on what it means to be Catholic. Many of the more external signs of Catholicism, the practices people associated with life in the Church, were abandoned thirty or more years ago. The disappearance of external protections left the internal life of faith exposed to error and confusion. The priests took the time to clarify with representatives of the Archdiocesan Pastoral Council just what was being asked for, and a list of six topics was finally agreed upon. The six topics that are to be discussed at some time over the course of the year, depending on the liturgical readings and season, are: the Eucharist, ordained priesthood, penance or reconciliation, marriage, the Blessed Virgin Mary and immigration.

           The first impression this list, minus the sixth concern about immigration, leaves with me is that we’re back to the Protestant Reformation.

………………
There are many good people whose path to holiness is shaped by religious individualism and private interpretation of what God has revealed. They are, however, called Protestants.

I wouldn’t be upset if the Church decided that bible study courses be shut down in the parishes. Back in the “good ole days” we weren’t exactly encouraged to study the Bible. Instead, we were encouraged to learn what the Church scholars had interpreted instead of our personal interpretation.

Link to the entire article http://www.answers.com/main/images/aNorthEast.gif http://www.answers.com/main/images/cLeftTop.gif http://www.answers.com/main/images/cRightTop.gif

                            http://www.answers.com/main/images/cLeftBottom.gif            http://www.answers.com/main/images/cRightBottom.gif

Although I appreciate your argument, my intense studying of the Bible as a Protestant led me to convert to the Catholic Church. :slight_smile:
I do think there needs to be a lot more cathechism in the homilies.

Honestly, I think its a good sign that lay people have decided they need homilies on the Eucharist, ordained priesthood, penance or reconciliation, marriage, and the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Yes it is unfortunate that these are “contested” but the only way for people to return to an authentically Catholic understanding of these central parts of our faith is to be taught about them. Of course, the question remains as to whether or not priestly formation in seminaries has adequately prepared priests to preach on these subjects. Sadly, I don’t have a whole lot of confidence…

I do find it interesting that the fall in Marian devotion came on the heels of Vatican II, when Vatican II had more to say about Mary than all the other ecumenical councils combined–and it was consecrated to her.

I know what you’re saying, but I think it should be clarified. Bible reading was encouraged in those days (there were big indulgences attached to it and encyclicals written on it), but the faithful were encouraged to read it in line with Tradition and the teaching of the Church. Nowadays, it’s often, studied without access to the Fathers, Saints, Magesterium, etc. and the emphasis is more on “what it means to you.” :nope:

You nailed it. When I was a youngster, I was given a bible for my Confirmation by my Grandfather. He told me to read it so I could understand what the the Church was telling me about it. Later on, I understood that I could study the bible for a lifetime and never replicate the scholarship and time that the Church as devoted to bible study.

Well, I like that remark about the Protestant Reformation.

That’s what I sense is going on in my diocese for a long time.
But, in the sense of morphing the Church into something else than it should be.

I’m starved for news about the Vatican synod scheduled for what, October? to address the application of Sacred Scripture in the daily life of the Church.

I have both prayed for and anticipated such a development, such as this, to really take up set the Church straight on this very subject.

I think it’s so sorely needed, especially in the context of this thread. But, I’m sure that the Pope has long wanted this discussion to take place, especially as an extension of the promulgation of the Catechism, which was the result of a previous synod.

In the U.S., especially, we are dealing with the results of the Reformation in every city and town, where the Church is divided and splintered over this particular issue.

As an example, I went to a parish talk on “women in the early church.” The priest had supposedly expounded on this subject from Biblical perspective earlier, which I missed. But, this was largely a power-point presentation of a lot of quotes from a few Church sources and a lot of secular sources. I found it to be quite misleading in its putting a lot of secular quotes on virtually an even footing with Scripture. (and he quoted the gnostics, too)

I jumped in at one point to pose the question, what was lacking in the priesthood which we’ve had for two millenia? Of course, that is one of the general points of the Reformation, that the Church got off track right from the start, and that the reformers were just putting it back on track after all that time. So, “protestant reformation” is not at all off base, and it’s refreshing for me to hear an American cardinal of great intellect saying so.

[quote=SnorterLuster] Read the entire article, Cardinal George seems to recognize that Vatican II had certain unintended consequences that have not been good for the Faith.
[/quote]

I commend you for reading good sources of Catholic teaching such as this publication. :tiphat:

The question that remains in my mind though, is why you attributed to the Cardinal’s words that he “seems” to recognize these problems are due to Vatican II. I am supposing you believe this because of his wording “thirty years or so” and arrived at that conclusion.

I disagree, simply because the six areas in his article were not specific documents of Vatican II. Rather, (IMO) this “seems” to stem from a culture with increasingly decadent morals, coupled with deficient catechesis and examples of christian values in the home and society. Our previous Popes wrote many excellent teachings on these six subjects, and coincidentally, Father Pacqua teaches on John Paul II’s documents on the EWTN broadcasts extensively.
I particularly enjoyed Familiaris Consortio which pertained to the family in our modern world. He took it very slowly over several weeks so we could absorb the lesson.

It would appear from your statement that the Church has never taught “anything” on these six areas and that Catholics are in the dark, due to Vatican II. Well, that is a notion I cannot dispel, since many blame everything that is amiss in the church today on Vatican II, whether or not there is any factual substance to that reasoning.

True catholics in mind and spirit do not fail to learn and study the truths of the faith, for they are an important guide for daily living and following their “informed” consciences. Many are not interested in hearing and properly educating themselves, or else having heard, prefer their own opinion and choose in opposition to sound doctrine. Jesus did say that those who are of the truth, hear His voice.

[Mt. 13:26] And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. And the servants of the goodman of the house coming said to him: Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it cockle? And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it.

Interesting to note, the cockle looks almost identical to the wheat, and one would have a difficult time distinguishing one from the other. But God sees the heart. :yup:

This list of six is always going to be the hot-button issue. It is what make us Catholic.

Here are the areas, once again, the Eucharist, ordained priesthood, penance or reconciliation, marriage, the Blessed Virgin Mary and immigration. I honestly do not see how these can even be hot button issues - especially amongst Catholics. Five of the six are non-negotiable and the sixth, immigration, is really a matter of opinion.

CD

It sure sounds to me like he is saying the fruits of VII have not been all that sweet.
“This is not surprising. Many writers who claim to be Catholic make names for themselves by attacking truths basic to our faith… The Second Vatican Council wasn’t called to turn Catholics into Protestants. It was called to ask God to bring all Christ’s followers into unity of faith so that the world would believe who Christ is and live with him in his Body, the Church.”

That depends upon how you read it, I would think. He selected specific words “many writers” to indicate they are attacking basic truths. Many writers would not refer the authors of the V-II documents, who were called to “bring Christ’s followers into unity of faith”
… but rather to those who attempt to turn catholics into protestants. Who might these “many writers” be? Truly, not the Council.

Why can’t you look at the whole article? I don’t think a reasonable person could conclude anything except that Cardinal George recognizes the atmosphere in the Church is very dangerous. And it is not the traditional Catholics who caused; “The disappearance of external protections left the internal life of faith exposed to error and confusion.”

I do not disagree that there are many problems in the church, but this age is no different than many other ages where there have ALWAYS been problems in the church. As to your underlined comment, here we have it once again, the subtle implication that traditionists are the perfect ones. Not surprising to me at all to read this.

Well, that is a notion I cannot dispel, since many blame everything that is amiss in the church today on Vatican II, whether or not there is any factual substance to that reasoning.
Just where do you find that …

It was a general comment based on personal observation, not specifically aimed at the article nor to you, if you note the word “many.” Since you are becoming defensive in reading Cardinal George’s words in that light, maybe the statement might now apply to you.

Oh yes, quoting scripture. And putting your own interpretation on it.

I feel very sorry for you Snorter. If a person who reads scripture is to be labeled protestant, for simply repeating one of Jesus’s parables, then maybe you are in the class of people the Cardinal concluded this statement with: Many writers who claim to be Catholic make names for themselves by attacking truths basic to our faith. Where does our faith teach us not to read, share, or interpret scripture? It is understood that the ultimate interpretation is not to be in contradiction of the Church who has Divine Authority to interpret it. Show me where I stated an error in repeating Jesus’s words, or that it somehow makes me protestant.

I find that your statement in itself is offensive to a guest of this forum who may be protestant, for they love God’s holy word, and try to live it with a clean heart. It is totally against our doctrine to demean another religion in this way, not to mention a christian one, and was itself made a document of V-II.

Joysong, is English a second language for you? You certainly tend not to understand what people write, or you want to look only at what you believe.

QUOTE (means exact words) like " It sure sounds to me like he is saying the fruits of VII have not been all that sweet." Do you see the underlined part? That does not say documents, or authors or participants. The fruit implies what comes after the Council, not before or during. Clear?

And of course you say; QUOTE “Who might these “many writers” be?” You would have to ask the Cardinal for sure, but I take it to be those people that are QUOTE “Without the personal integrity that would bring them to admit they have simply lost the faith that comes to us from the Apostles, they reconstruct it on a purely subjective, individualistic basis and call it renewal.” Who knows, it might be a writer on a message board that thinks all the fruit (oh, that pesky word) of Vatican II came only from the documents, not the implementation. Like you, these writers
reconstruct it on a purely subjective, individualistic basis and call it renewal.

QUOTE"…here we have it once again, the subtle implication that traditionists are the perfect ones." Gee, where did I ever say that? It’s so darn subtle, I doubt anyone could find except you.

QUOTE “…if you note the word “many.” Since you are becoming defensive in reading Cardinal George’s words in that light, maybe the statement might now apply to you.” I’m just funny that way, when some one addresses a reply to one of my posts, addresses her comments to me by name and then makes a statement, I just assumed the writer also intended me in the many. By the way, just who are QUOTE “True catholics in mind and spirit do not fail to learn and study the truths of the faith, for they are an important guide for daily living and following their “informed” consciences.” Do these true Catholics include me, or just you?
QUOTE “I feel very sorry for you Snorter. If a person who reads scripture is to be labeled protestant, for simply repeating one of Jesus’s parables…” Tell it to the Cardinal. It was only he that I quoted. I feel very sorry for you joysong, you call yourself Catholic but ignore what one of the Cardinals of our Church says. Try being obedient to our leaders in the Church and you might find peace and happiness in your life.

QUOTE (means exact words) like " It sure sounds to me like he is saying the fruits of VII have not been all that sweet." Do you see the underlined part? That does not say documents, or authors or participants. The fruit implies what comes after the Council, not before or during. Clear?

It appears that your reading is selective, for I did not challenge your words, but gave my own interpretation of the Cardinal’s article and the words “many writers.” My comment regarding your interpretation of them was, “That depends upon how you read it, I would think.” Your interpretation of his words is dependent upon your frame of reference, and I believe that with you, it lies within the very title of this thread.

Just because you fail to state in exact words what your thoughts are, does not mean one is naive as to the intent. How else might one consider your words? “And it is not the traditional Catholics who caused … the internal life of faith exposed to error and confusion.” [Particularly, when you have other posts on the forum which point in the same direction.]

It is not my wish to argue semantics. You stated your opinion, and I trust that in posting, you wanted others to state theirs. I have done so, and if it bothers you that I saw it differently, you should say in your OP that only those who agree with you should respond.

First the Cardinal needs to stop using their language or atleast clarify it. It was the Protestant Revolt and the Catholic Reformation according to my Catholic history book. The Protestants had no reform. The Catholics reformed the church trying to take out bad practices.

My, my, kind of testy aren’t you?QUOTE: “Just because you fail to state in exact words what your thoughts are, does not mean one is naive as to the intent.” It’s hard enough to post on the internet without someone using elipses to change the clear meaning of both what you said and the intent. Like an example joysong? How about the full quote above. FULL QUOTE **And it is not the traditional Catholics who caused; “**The disappearance of external protections left the internal life of faith exposed to error and confusion.” Unless of course you are maintaining that it was the traditionalist that removed the externals of the Faith, and not those who are extolling the virtures of “noble simplicity.”

Snorter,

Read my signature, I think it explains it all. You are free to see everything I wrote as unclean, testy, deliberately throwing in ellipses, whatever. :smiley:

Bye.

All things are clean to the clean:
but to them that are defiled, and to unbelievers, nothing is clean.
* (Titus 1:15)

*[LEFT]I got a Baptist neighboor that quotes scripture just like you. I would be fun to watch you two throw one liners at each other for hours.

QUOTE: **Insulting another member by calling that person a “prot,” “fundie,” “radtrad,” “heretic,” or anything else is not permitted on these boards. This rule will be rigorously enforced.

**

Snorter,

Read my signature, I think it explains it all. You are free to see everything I wrote as unclean, testy, deliberately throwing in ellipses, whatever. :smiley:

Bye.

I never called you unclean, but I think you just called me unclean, and defiled, and an unbeliever. Do you suppose the “name calling” rule applies to you? Probably not.

Hey have a nice day, and I will remember you tomorrow during the Commemoration of the Living prayer.
[/LEFT]

It’s because most Catholics are born Catholic, and may not know the reasoning behind the Church’s teachings.

Having said that, I’ll say that unwavering faith, even if the faithful is unsure of the reason behind the teachings, is a beautiful and admirable thing.

[quote=Mark a]I’ll say that unwavering faith, even if the faithful is unsure of the reason behind the teachings, is a beautiful and admirable thing.
[/quote]

Beautiful! This attitude of faith was always praised by Jesus in the gospels.

what the???:confused: boy I’m sick for a few days and what do I miss? Snoter, I don’t see where she ever called you anything.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.