Replies

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.

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.

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.