There is no "The Church hasn't done that since Vatican II".
You are still required to abstain from meat every, single Friday, unless some other penetential act is performed. According to Vatican II, there should still be masses in Latin. According to Vatican II, only priests should distribute Holy Communion to the faithful. Vatican II called for the priests to preserve their duties and read the scripture verses themselves. Vatican II called for an increase of praying the rosary and novenas.
Yes there have been ma made churches because of our dear friends the Protestants who were the first pioneers to reinvente their own bible and others started to invente their own cults and bibles following Protestant but Roman Cathlic has the only true original bible. The Vaticna is the biggest museum of Christianity in the entire world! Peter>Petros the Rock!
What is the relevance of talking about 'Protestant Bibles'? The King James Bible is no different except slightly simplified language. Protestants don't reinvent their own Bible. Except for Jehovah Witnesses.
Well I have couple of university degrees ad I speak few languages, what about you? DO you know how to read the bible? I do not think so!YOu are also blind on top of that with the caseof amnesia!
Vatican II. An idea of Pope John XXII, conducted by his weak successor Paul VI.
Consequences in Western Europe: Total decline. Present Pope Benedict XVI more or less admitted that severe mistakes were made by his Motu Proprio Sumorum Pontificum.
Not in the council, but in the impementation of this council.
Forbidding the Old Tridentine mass was NEVER decided at the council but the will of Pope Paul VI. By restoring this ancient rite the pope corrected this mistake. Furthermore the pope spoke about a reform of the reform, probably a task for his successor.
The decline that has taken place in the RC church over the past few decades is not the fault of Vatican 2. It's that the Church hasn't kept up with changes ENOUGH. It is also because there hasn't been a spiritual openness in the RC Church and the Mass itself is too cerebral and boring without enough singing of hymns (like in the wonderful Anglican Church, for example). Also the hiding of paedophile priests and trying to pretend the whole child abuse didn't happen hasn't helped things either!
I agree that the Novus Ordo Mass is boring! Therefore it is no improvement from the Tridentine Mass. If you change someting, it must be an improval. Novus Ordo is a weak compromise. The Anglican Church in England is not very succesfull either the last few decades.
Child abuse is a total shame and a consequence of the unneccesary celebacy for priests. They changed the wrong things.
Yes, but enforced celibacy of priests has been there for a long time and well BEFORE Vatican 2, so it has nothing to do with Vatican 2. But I agree that this is something that should have been changed at Vatican 2 and it wasn't. The child abuse should have have happened anyway. But what was weakened the Church greatly was the church's lack of action and sheer reluctance of admission of guilt. The RC tried to sweep it under the carpet in a very HYPOCRITICAL way because the RC is HYPOCRITICAL.
Some people like to hear fairy tales, and do not accept the fact that their fairy tale is not true. Facts speak for themselves.
If the Church implemented the guidelines of John XXIII written in Veterum Sapientia in 1962 about the Mass, It could have become an improvement. In stead the weak Pope Paul VI came with the compromise Novus Ordo in 1969, not at all what John XXIII wanted if you read Veterum Sapientia!
I don't know if you are talking to me when you are talking about 'fairy tales'. Many say Christianity is a fairy tale too. As the the Novus Ordo, I don't care. I think Vatican 2 needed to happen and a 3rd Vatican needs to happen as the church is very outdated.
I think a 3rd Vatican Council is needed soon. There have been so many changes in society over the past few decades that the Church is very old-fashioned and out-of-date. A modernizing and liberalization is needed. BIG TIME.
That can take a while. Present Pope Benedict XXIII wants to restore a few things that were changed after the council. The Motu Proprio is an example for that. I do not think a modernisation will do the church much good. It is better to preserve the tradition as the Eastern Orthodox churches do.
God Doesn't change, so why should HIS church? The Catholic Church is rich with the magisterium. We must not bring our human desires in order to change it. If God wants it changed, he will do so, however, God does not Change, and neither will his church.
God doesn't change? Who says? You? You decide, eh? Who says the Catholic Church (or indeed ANY church) is God's? A Church is a man-made organization with man-made rules. Just as the Catholic Church is man-made. The RC Church has OFTEN changed and bent the rules over the centuries to suit their own end. The Church HAS changed over time, because it was MAN that decided it would change. EG, married and even gay priests being tolerated by the Early Church is one example.
Exuse me Sir, but how did it wreak the church? The documents say that a VANACULAR mass must be done with the permission of the bishop, not the Laitn mass. The thing that really wreaked the Church was the USCCB's mistranlsation of it.
No, what some advisors around Pope John XIII wanted. Jesus would not like a process that lead to a total decline of the Catholic Church in Western Europe.
There are neutral historical Roman sources (non religious) who speak about Jesus. That a person called "Jesus" excisted 2000 years ago, and that he lived in Palestine are accepted historical facts by most historians. But early christianity built a myth around "Jesus" which is probably largely not true.
In my eyes he was a good, rebellious person who fought the hypocritical religious Jewish system of his time. For that he was executed. After the execution the myth started.....
Exactly, much of Christianity is actually a myth. Much of what is espoused by Christians is mythical and far from the real Jesus and what he wanted. Not any historians accept the existence of Jesus. And even if his existence as a historical figure is accepted there is, and never will be, any proof that he was anything other than a wise man and a leader of sorts.
Last statement is also not true. For example the Armenian Apostolical Church. They did not change their rites since the 3rd century and they show no signs of decline. If you want to see how the early Christians celebrated Mass, go to the Armenian Church. You will be struck by the fact that their mass is very simular to the Tridentine Catholic Mass, exept for the fact that they do not use Latin but Old Armenian.
Haven't a clue what 'last statement' you are referring to. I don't give a hoot about the Tridentine Mass or anything like it. All I'm saying is the Church is man-made institution with man-made rules that they change over time just to suit themselves. The Church is a business and the RC church is one of the richest organisations in the world. The RC Church even has shares in condom companies! The Vatican is a Capitalistic state par excellence!
We catholics don't believe it's man made, we believe Jesus Started the Church. You simply just saying simple words to the contrary will NOT change our minds. Sorry you wasted your time.
And for the record regarding what you said earlier, some priests are married because they come from the episcopal church, and the church has no officeal dogma on celebacy, but does enforce it. In other words, we dont see it as inspired by God. But encouraged it is, and its a good thing.
Yes, I'm aware of the whole idea that Jesus was the 'founder of the Church' idea. I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying what followed is NOT necessarily what God/Jesus wanted. Many would say that organised religion is NOT what Jesus wished. Yes, you'll say the 'Holy Spirit' Guide priests, etc. But I think that's Bull because some priests and Popes have been/are corrupt and even evil (child abuse etc).
We do not deny there have been corrupt popes and priests. God there has indeed. However, as catholics, we understand that God will not allow the Dogma and morals of the Church to change. The holy spirit does not allow a pope to suddenly decide abortion is ok, or gay marriage. Even if the evil pope wants it, tough. God does not allow the moral teachings to change at all. He keeps it all the same. even when priests are corrupt and immoral, they shall be judged, but the church will live.
I see you never countered when I said the Church doesn't change because God doesn't change!! That's because it's bull!! Even the Crucades would NOT be acceptable nowadays, but it was then. To say the Church doesn't change is crazy because it does change along with society, albeit incredibly slowly. Yes, there are married priests from the Anglican tradition who jumped ship (the ultra conservative ones). So what? The Church still expects celibacy but used not to, which shows the Church changes.
Like I did say already, celebacy is NOT dogma, meaning it is NOT believed to be inspired by God. The church changes on the human aspect. YOu would have to be Catholic to understand. The crusades would be acceptable today believe it or not, because the church believes in a Just war, the crusades was to stop the muslims from slaughtering all the christians, which any history lesson will teach you.
If you think celibacy is a good idea, that's your opinion. But maybe that's one reason (and I have heard some priests agreeing with this) that the horrendous child abuse happened. There have also been priests who fathered illegitimate children and even priests who impregnated nuns in Africa who then had to go on to have abortions. That is totally wrong and all because the RC Church is rather hypocritical and even evil. I think it's very UNNATURAL to expect a man to have to be celibate.
Finally, I'm fully aware you're brain-washed and I'm not trying to change your opinion at all. I don't give a hoot if you don't even believe me. I just stand up for myself and stand my ground when apologists like you come along spouting their arrogance. Cheerio now! I won't be replying to you again!!
If you don't like apologists like me, then stop instigating arguments. And what is wrong with ME defending myself? YOu say you do it, whey can't I? Sounds like a double standard to me.
There is no "The Church hasn't done that since Vatican II".
You are still required to abstain from meat every, single Friday, unless some other penetential act is performed. According to Vatican II, there should still be masses in Latin. According to Vatican II, only priests should distribute Holy Communion to the faithful. Vatican II called for the priests to preserve their duties and read the scripture verses themselves. Vatican II called for an increase of praying the rosary and novenas.
TenderTrap86 2 years ago 3
@TenderTrap86 really, i have to an exam on this by thursday, and you ahve confused me, any essays explaining the proof for what you said?
mrh3tic 10 months ago
Yes there have been ma made churches because of our dear friends the Protestants who were the first pioneers to reinvente their own bible and others started to invente their own cults and bibles following Protestant but Roman Cathlic has the only true original bible. The Vaticna is the biggest museum of Christianity in the entire world! Peter>Petros the Rock!
katdanmo 2 years ago
What is the relevance of talking about 'Protestant Bibles'? The King James Bible is no different except slightly simplified language. Protestants don't reinvent their own Bible. Except for Jehovah Witnesses.
bacabu30 2 years ago
Well I have couple of university degrees ad I speak few languages, what about you? DO you know how to read the bible? I do not think so!YOu are also blind on top of that with the caseof amnesia!
katdanmo 2 years ago
Vatican II. An idea of Pope John XXII, conducted by his weak successor Paul VI.
Consequences in Western Europe: Total decline. Present Pope Benedict XVI more or less admitted that severe mistakes were made by his Motu Proprio Sumorum Pontificum.
AndreasAntoniusMaria 2 years ago
What mistakes does he say were made, for example?
bacabu30 2 years ago
Not in the council, but in the impementation of this council.
Forbidding the Old Tridentine mass was NEVER decided at the council but the will of Pope Paul VI. By restoring this ancient rite the pope corrected this mistake. Furthermore the pope spoke about a reform of the reform, probably a task for his successor.
AndreasAntoniusMaria 2 years ago
The decline that has taken place in the RC church over the past few decades is not the fault of Vatican 2. It's that the Church hasn't kept up with changes ENOUGH. It is also because there hasn't been a spiritual openness in the RC Church and the Mass itself is too cerebral and boring without enough singing of hymns (like in the wonderful Anglican Church, for example). Also the hiding of paedophile priests and trying to pretend the whole child abuse didn't happen hasn't helped things either!
bacabu30 2 years ago
I agree that the Novus Ordo Mass is boring! Therefore it is no improvement from the Tridentine Mass. If you change someting, it must be an improval. Novus Ordo is a weak compromise. The Anglican Church in England is not very succesfull either the last few decades.
Child abuse is a total shame and a consequence of the unneccesary celebacy for priests. They changed the wrong things.
AndreasAntoniusMaria 2 years ago
Yes, but enforced celibacy of priests has been there for a long time and well BEFORE Vatican 2, so it has nothing to do with Vatican 2. But I agree that this is something that should have been changed at Vatican 2 and it wasn't. The child abuse should have have happened anyway. But what was weakened the Church greatly was the church's lack of action and sheer reluctance of admission of guilt. The RC tried to sweep it under the carpet in a very HYPOCRITICAL way because the RC is HYPOCRITICAL.
bacabu30 2 years ago
Some people like to hear fairy tales, and do not accept the fact that their fairy tale is not true. Facts speak for themselves.
If the Church implemented the guidelines of John XXIII written in Veterum Sapientia in 1962 about the Mass, It could have become an improvement. In stead the weak Pope Paul VI came with the compromise Novus Ordo in 1969, not at all what John XXIII wanted if you read Veterum Sapientia!
AndreasAntoniusMaria 2 years ago
I don't know if you are talking to me when you are talking about 'fairy tales'. Many say Christianity is a fairy tale too. As the the Novus Ordo, I don't care. I think Vatican 2 needed to happen and a 3rd Vatican needs to happen as the church is very outdated.
bacabu30 2 years ago
interesting footage.
bacabu30 2 years ago
I think a 3rd Vatican Council is needed soon. There have been so many changes in society over the past few decades that the Church is very old-fashioned and out-of-date. A modernizing and liberalization is needed. BIG TIME.
bacabu30 2 years ago
That can take a while. Present Pope Benedict XXIII wants to restore a few things that were changed after the council. The Motu Proprio is an example for that. I do not think a modernisation will do the church much good. It is better to preserve the tradition as the Eastern Orthodox churches do.
AndreasAntoniusMaria 2 years ago
God Doesn't change, so why should HIS church? The Catholic Church is rich with the magisterium. We must not bring our human desires in order to change it. If God wants it changed, he will do so, however, God does not Change, and neither will his church.
MrJohnnySharp 2 years ago
God doesn't change? Who says? You? You decide, eh? Who says the Catholic Church (or indeed ANY church) is God's? A Church is a man-made organization with man-made rules. Just as the Catholic Church is man-made. The RC Church has OFTEN changed and bent the rules over the centuries to suit their own end. The Church HAS changed over time, because it was MAN that decided it would change. EG, married and even gay priests being tolerated by the Early Church is one example.
bacabu30 2 years ago
Exuse me Sir, but how did it wreak the church? The documents say that a VANACULAR mass must be done with the permission of the bishop, not the Laitn mass. The thing that really wreaked the Church was the USCCB's mistranlsation of it.
ChristainPatriot01 2 years ago
I agree!
It was a misguided attempt to follow fashion and did great damage!
broadleygreen 2 years ago
i am sure that the 2nd vatican council is, what jesus christ wanted for the church in the present. thanks, jesus!
michajehu 2 years ago
No, what some advisors around Pope John XIII wanted. Jesus would not like a process that lead to a total decline of the Catholic Church in Western Europe.
AndreasAntoniusMaria 2 years ago
Who knows what Jesus wants? Nobody. That's if he even exists anyway! lol
A Church that doesn't change declines, not the other way around.
bacabu30 2 years ago
There are neutral historical Roman sources (non religious) who speak about Jesus. That a person called "Jesus" excisted 2000 years ago, and that he lived in Palestine are accepted historical facts by most historians. But early christianity built a myth around "Jesus" which is probably largely not true.
In my eyes he was a good, rebellious person who fought the hypocritical religious Jewish system of his time. For that he was executed. After the execution the myth started.....
AndreasAntoniusMaria 2 years ago
Exactly, much of Christianity is actually a myth. Much of what is espoused by Christians is mythical and far from the real Jesus and what he wanted. Not any historians accept the existence of Jesus. And even if his existence as a historical figure is accepted there is, and never will be, any proof that he was anything other than a wise man and a leader of sorts.
bacabu30 2 years ago
Last statement is also not true. For example the Armenian Apostolical Church. They did not change their rites since the 3rd century and they show no signs of decline. If you want to see how the early Christians celebrated Mass, go to the Armenian Church. You will be struck by the fact that their mass is very simular to the Tridentine Catholic Mass, exept for the fact that they do not use Latin but Old Armenian.
AndreasAntoniusMaria 2 years ago
Haven't a clue what 'last statement' you are referring to. I don't give a hoot about the Tridentine Mass or anything like it. All I'm saying is the Church is man-made institution with man-made rules that they change over time just to suit themselves. The Church is a business and the RC church is one of the richest organisations in the world. The RC Church even has shares in condom companies! The Vatican is a Capitalistic state par excellence!
bacabu30 2 years ago
We catholics don't believe it's man made, we believe Jesus Started the Church. You simply just saying simple words to the contrary will NOT change our minds. Sorry you wasted your time.
And for the record regarding what you said earlier, some priests are married because they come from the episcopal church, and the church has no officeal dogma on celebacy, but does enforce it. In other words, we dont see it as inspired by God. But encouraged it is, and its a good thing.
MrJohnnySharp 2 years ago
Yes, I'm aware of the whole idea that Jesus was the 'founder of the Church' idea. I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying what followed is NOT necessarily what God/Jesus wanted. Many would say that organised religion is NOT what Jesus wished. Yes, you'll say the 'Holy Spirit' Guide priests, etc. But I think that's Bull because some priests and Popes have been/are corrupt and even evil (child abuse etc).
bacabu30 2 years ago
We do not deny there have been corrupt popes and priests. God there has indeed. However, as catholics, we understand that God will not allow the Dogma and morals of the Church to change. The holy spirit does not allow a pope to suddenly decide abortion is ok, or gay marriage. Even if the evil pope wants it, tough. God does not allow the moral teachings to change at all. He keeps it all the same. even when priests are corrupt and immoral, they shall be judged, but the church will live.
MrJohnnySharp 2 years ago 3
I see you never countered when I said the Church doesn't change because God doesn't change!! That's because it's bull!! Even the Crucades would NOT be acceptable nowadays, but it was then. To say the Church doesn't change is crazy because it does change along with society, albeit incredibly slowly. Yes, there are married priests from the Anglican tradition who jumped ship (the ultra conservative ones). So what? The Church still expects celibacy but used not to, which shows the Church changes.
bacabu30 2 years ago
Like I did say already, celebacy is NOT dogma, meaning it is NOT believed to be inspired by God. The church changes on the human aspect. YOu would have to be Catholic to understand. The crusades would be acceptable today believe it or not, because the church believes in a Just war, the crusades was to stop the muslims from slaughtering all the christians, which any history lesson will teach you.
MrJohnnySharp 2 years ago
If you think celibacy is a good idea, that's your opinion. But maybe that's one reason (and I have heard some priests agreeing with this) that the horrendous child abuse happened. There have also been priests who fathered illegitimate children and even priests who impregnated nuns in Africa who then had to go on to have abortions. That is totally wrong and all because the RC Church is rather hypocritical and even evil. I think it's very UNNATURAL to expect a man to have to be celibate.
bacabu30 2 years ago
Finally, I'm fully aware you're brain-washed and I'm not trying to change your opinion at all. I don't give a hoot if you don't even believe me. I just stand up for myself and stand my ground when apologists like you come along spouting their arrogance. Cheerio now! I won't be replying to you again!!
bacabu30 2 years ago
Well good, then I can have the last say.
If you don't like apologists like me, then stop instigating arguments. And what is wrong with ME defending myself? YOu say you do it, whey can't I? Sounds like a double standard to me.
MrJohnnySharp 2 years ago
Yeeahh..about that..
Patriarch00 2 years ago
good information
DwEdGe8 2 years ago
interesting
anastasia2657 2 years ago