FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: The current state of the church
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Just how many modernists (laymen and clergy) do you believe occupy the church? Are they a small, but vocal, minority or perhaps the majority? I know there are conservative Catholics who see themselves as traditional in beliefs but are opposed to the latin mass; however I do feel that they would welcome a traditional minded pope. So, I would probably lump this group in with Voris type Catholics. Anyway...thoughts?
I apologize if the above post sounds like an incomplete thought. I am EXHAUSTED for some reason!
I'd guess it's about the same that voted for Obama, which was 54 per cent. I'd bet many of them are not practicing Catholics. Then if we consider the  percentage of all Catholics which attend Sunday Mass which is one third, then multiply the two it'd be around 15 per cent or 12 million. Just guessing.

tim
It's hard to give an exact quantity of modernist Catholics compared to orthodox ones, but if you grouped people by age, I would say that Baby Boomers & older Generation Xers are a mixed bag.  Lots of Protestants in Catholics  clothing... liberals who would rather see the Church be more democratic.  Piers Morgan and Nancy Pelosi type Catholics who grew up worshipping the Kennedys.

I'm 31 and I'd say most of my peers who attend Mass and call themselves Catholics are actually Catholic.  Most who grew up going to church might have gone to youth group in their teens but abandoned it as soon as they got to college.

Now what I don't understand is why many of them go to the Novus Ordo.  But at the same time most would never be OK with women priests, contraception, divorce or homosexuality.
Good Lord, I certainly believe it to be the majority.  Overwhelming majority.  Look at it this way: anyone who believes in any of the conciliar errors (religious liberty, for example) is a modernist.  Now, whether or not they are bad willed is another question, I do believe that there are bishops who honestly think that the council errors are true to the True faith, but they believe them nevertheless.

The USCCB filled bulletins across America advertising religious liberty rallies.  Not a single American bishop spoke against these rallies, which are based in anti-Catholic principle.  Because of this, I believe that every single member of the USCCB is a modernist, whether he knows it or not.

I think that if you're born into America (I can't speak for Europe, but it may be true there as well) that you are, with a few exceptions, modernist by default.  Our country, socially and 'religiously' is thoroughly modernistic, and one has to make a conscious effort not to be, because from a very early age you are inundated with it.  
(03-12-2013, 09:46 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Good Lord, I certainly believe it to be the majority.  Overwhelming majority.  Look at it this way: anyone who believes in any of the conciliar errors (religious liberty, for example) is a modernist.  Now, whether or not they are bad willed is another question, I do believe that there are bishops who honestly think that the council errors are true to the True faith, but they believe them nevertheless.

The USCCB filled bulletins across America advertising religious liberty rallies.  Not a single American bishop spoke against these rallies, which are based in anti-Catholic principle.  Because of this, I believe that every single member of the USCCB is a modernist, whether he knows it or not.

I think that if you're born into America (I can't speak for Europe, but it may be true there as well) that you are, with a few exceptions, modernist by default.  Our country, socially and 'religiously' is thoroughly modernistic, and one has to make a conscious effort not to be, because from a very early age you are inundated with it.  

This.

The First Amendment promotes individual Liberalism while simulatenously promoting state Indifferentism (and/or agnosticism).

Unitatis Redintegratio comes dangerously close to an error described by Msgr. Fenton:

"Unfortunately there have been and there still are individuals who look upon the Church as really necessary only for the complete fulness of those revealed truths and other supernatural aids which, according to their teaching, can be obtained outside the Church and independently of it less perfectly, although still to an extent sufficient to make salvation possible.  Obviously such an interpretation of the Church’s necessity for salvation reduces this teaching to a mere empty formula" (AER, February 1951).


"The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion.  These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community.  These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

"It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.  For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church" (UR, n. 3 s3-4).


Unitatis Redintegratio appears to avoid the error by asserting that the supernatural aids can be obtained outside the Church but through her and not independently.  In this way, the Holy Ghost uses those false sects as means of salvation.  "No salvation outside the Church" has become "No salvation except through the Church."  Previously, it was not the condition of the "communities" or "Churches," but the invincible ignorance of individuals which allowed non-Catholics to receive grace from the sacraments, even in spite of their illicit administration (by heretical/schismatic clerics).

Whether I'm right or wrong in my analysis, I don't think it's hard for nearly all of us to agree that Indifferentism is widespread today, among both the clergy and the laity alike.  How often do bishops, or even the Roman Pontiff himself, mention the absolutely grave necessity of all men to join Christ's Church in order to be saved?  It's good that Our Lord is still proclaimed as the Savior of all men, but how often do we hear of the obligation of non-Catholics to abandon heresy and schism and to make haste into the Bride of Christ?  Instead, we hear of "imperfect communion," interfaith liturgical services and gradual agreement on fundamental points of doctrine between the Church and the false sects (i.e. ecumenical dialogue).

And let us remember:

"'It is evident that the work of preparing and reconciling those individuals who desire full Catholic communion is of its nature distinct from ecumenical action, but there is no opposition between the two, since both proceed from the marvelous ways of God'.  Therefore, the work of ecumenism does not remove the right or take away the responsibility of proclaiming in fullness the Catholic faith to other Christians, who freely wish to receive it."

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...ne_en.html

Ecumenism is no longer strictly identified as, "the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it" (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, n. 10.).  That (i.e. the return of non-Catholics) is now something to be understood as being of its nature distinct from ecumenism.  ???


I don't want to pretend to be able to read the hearts of men, but externally, I'd estimate that at least 85% (about 6/7ths) of the Church is infected with Modernism, even if only materially; and that's a conservative estimate on my part.
In America? 90% or better. Total guess, but the modernist Bishops pushed out the trads, and the trads that are left have to bend to the "will of the people" (which I believe Americans truly believe is "holy" — they want to hear and participate and such, because they're so holy :eyeroll: ) As Chestertonian said, many don't even KNOW they're modernists, because they're against women's ordination and such, but I was flabbergasted with the numbers of Catholics who've never heard ...Latin. I get school kids not having to learn Latin, because America hates all things not "modern", including Jesus :pray: But you'd think your everyday Catholic would know what a Pater Noster is. They don't. I have Litany of the Saints (many versions) on my car's iPod, and a priest was speaking with me as I sat in the car, and he pointed with recognition! Then said, "That's some kind of Gregorian Chant, isn't it!" (And the devil about jumped into my right limbs that I could back up and run over the "priest". What PRIEST doesn't know "....ora pro nobis".)

Nice priest; very holy; our seminaries SUCK though. What can we expect? (We beg African priests to visit. And stay. In our homes. Forever!)

Have you all seen this 70s movie called "The Catholics"? (Now called "The Conflict") It was before my time, and I've just ordered it (not seen it all yet), but I was just introduced to it this week. The music is a little irritating to my tastes; but it's engaging and sad. Btw, the priest isn't Charlie Sheen, but Martin Sheen, and he's actually pretty good. It's basically TLM vs "do I listen to Paul VI"... tear-jerking.)

[video=youtube]3i_Pm1iPkR4#![/video]
The song playing in the background of that video is appropriate.  The Mass Rock in the Glen is a song about how good priests risked their lives to bring the Mass to the Faithful in Ireland when the Catholic Faith was outlawed by the English.  I've read a story on a web site connected to Alexandria diocese about a good Irish priest that brought the Mass to my ancestors in Glengarry Scotland when they had been without it for two years.  The good Irish priest was eventually hung, drawn and quartered by the crazy reformers just for saying the Mass.
All in all, I'd agree with the 90% figure. A small, intelligent minority know what's what and they are in the key positions that lay down the agenda for everyone else. The vast majority of modernists are good-willed priests that have simply learned the wrong religion and think it's Catholic. The vast majority of the laymen follow those nice, good-willed pseudo-Catholic priests.