Replies

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.

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.