FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Tradition and the Future - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Tradition and the Future (/showthread.php?tid=61330)

Pages: 1 2


Tradition and the Future - CatholicLife - 02-13-2013

I don't know if someone has posted this already.



Re: Tradition and the Future - per_passionem_eius - 02-13-2013

I think I watched this last year on FE.  I enjoyed it just as much today as then.  Thanks so much for posting it.  It's very encouraging.


Re: Tradition and the Future - Tim - 02-13-2013

Father looks like my generation and his description of his parents fits mine, and I wonder if he wonders, had there never been any reform of the Liturgy past Pope John XXIII if we would be here ? I don't think so. I'm sure that the spirit of the age as in sinfulness would have attacked but I don't believe as many would have been lost in that battle.

tim


Re: Tradition and the Future - charlesh - 02-14-2013

Fr Kramer hits the nail on the head when he says Vatican II was a revolt on the part of the clergy. I've talked with a lot of people,and I am absolutely convinced he is right. The people never asked for any of the reforms. One of the chief characteristics of pre-Vatican II times was the zealousness and fervency of the laity. The revolt was done in the name of the people, but it was a lie.


Re: Tradition and the Future - DeoGratias72 - 02-14-2013

(02-13-2013, 02:10 AM)CatholicLife Wrote: I don't know if someone has posted this already.



Re: Tradition and the Future - Tim - 02-14-2013

(02-14-2013, 02:16 AM)charlesh Wrote: Fr Kramer hits the nail on the head when he says Vatican II was a revolt on the part of the clergy. I've talked with a lot of people,and I am absolutely convinced he is right. The people never asked for any of the reforms. One of the chief characteristics of pre-Vatican II times was the zealousness and fervency of the laity. The revolt was done in the name of the people, but it was a lie.

You're right we had no ideas about changing, unless it was some secret group I never heard about. We were sinners like every generation, but we like sheep followed the Shepherd. Today has no balance like before. We knew when a someone was just adding wood to our load for no reason, and ignored them, but like good sheep we followed along the same routes all in line until the end. In those days we all believed, we as in the US, had beaten back evil personified. We, us Catholics, were getting jobs which appeared to be able to lead us into the middle class. Our Churches were magnificent, priests were everywhere, sisters couldn't be counted as the sands on a beach, and the Catholic School System was turning out our children with scores which made the Public School System angry. For American Catholics it was way good. We could afford a big Sunday dinner with the relatives, we had homes or apartments and could save for washing machines or TV's. We thought we were blessed. Oh and the Catholic Family was still intact, that's the extended family, not the Protestant nuclear family.

tim

tim


Re: Tradition and the Future - Cordobes - 02-14-2013

(02-14-2013, 02:16 AM)charlesh Wrote: Fr Kramer hits the nail on the head when he says Vatican II was a revolt on the part of the clergy. I've talked with a lot of people,and I am absolutely convinced he is right. The people never asked for any of the reforms. One of the chief characteristics of pre-Vatican II times was the zealousness and fervency of the laity. The revolt was done in the name of the people, but it was a lie.

The interesting irony about the aftermath of Vatican II seems to be that its call for the empowerment of the laypeople was so visibly answered in the traditional movement, which got off the ground in the 1960s with a grand total of two bishops and a lopsided amount of laypeople. Compare to the liberal movement in America, Europe, and South America, which was teeming from the beginning with a veritable army of bishops, prelates,  monsignors, religious superiors, etc.


Re: Tradition and the Future - per_passionem_eius - 02-14-2013

(02-14-2013, 09:26 AM)Cordobes Wrote:
(02-14-2013, 02:16 AM)charlesh Wrote: Fr Kramer hits the nail on the head when he says Vatican II was a revolt on the part of the clergy. I've talked with a lot of people,and I am absolutely convinced he is right. The people never asked for any of the reforms. One of the chief characteristics of pre-Vatican II times was the zealousness and fervency of the laity. The revolt was done in the name of the people, but it was a lie.

The interesting irony about the aftermath of Vatican II seems to be that its call for the empowerment of the laypeople was so visibly answered in the traditional movement, which got off the ground in the 1960s with a grand total of two bishops and a lopsided amount of laypeople. Compare to the liberal movement in America, Europe, and South America, which was teeming from the beginning with a veritable army of bishops, prelates,  monsignors, religious superiors, etc.

Would you please elaborate?  I don't think I understand what you're saying.  Is it that while VII supposedly empowered the laity, it was the trads who really gave the laity what they wanted?  This would be how it seems to me.  I wasn't Catholic at the time so I don't know. 


Re: Tradition and the Future - Cordobes - 02-15-2013

No problem, all I was pointing out was that one of the principal VII themes is often talked up as the "empowerment of laity," that the life of the Church should be driven more by the laity and not by the clergy. So it just seems a little interesting to me that subsequent to the council, the "reform" or liberalization movement was in actuality so top-heavy with clergy and hierarchs pushing new liturgy and new teaching, while the movement to preserve the old liturgy and doctrine was dominated by laypeople with only a very few bishops and even priests. We've all heard the tales about trad laypeople traveling hundreds of miles to find a priest to offer mass for them, or homeschooling because they had no clergy-run schools in sympathy with them. Contrariwise, you don't ever hear of a shortage of liberal priests or bishops to provide masses or education. Another example; so many of the trad intellectuals seem to have been laymen: Michael Davies for instance. Basically just reiterating what Charlesh said about the reform being a revolt of the clergy, not the laity—an example of the trahison des clercs. Does that make sense?



Re: Tradition and the Future - per_passionem_eius - 02-15-2013

(02-15-2013, 11:25 AM)Cordobes Wrote: No problem, all I was pointing out was that one of the principal VII themes is often talked up as the "empowerment of laity," that the life of the Church should be driven more by the laity and not by the clergy. So it just seems a little interesting to me that subsequent to the council, the "reform" or liberalization movement was in actuality so top-heavy with clergy and hierarchs pushing new liturgy and new teaching, while the movement to preserve the old liturgy and doctrine was dominated by laypeople with only a very few bishops and even priests. We've all heard the tales about trad laypeople traveling hundreds of miles to find a priest to offer mass for them, or homeschooling because they had no clergy-run schools in sympathy with them. Contrariwise, you don't ever hear of a shortage of liberal priests or bishops to provide masses or education. Another example; so many of the trad intellectuals seem to have been laymen: Michael Davies for instance. Basically just reiterating what Charlesh said about the reform being a revolt of the clergy, not the laity—an example of the trahison des clercs. Does that make sense?

That makes very good sense.  I'd never thought of that.  Good point.  Thanks!