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.
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.
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.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.
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.
No, it didn’t. From the Catechism: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."
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"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.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
Dominus Vobiscum
patent +AMDG