Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you
#11
(07-23-2009, 07:17 PM)Fontevrault Wrote: My father tells me that many Catholics back in the 50s didn't really understand or engage in the mass.  This is hard for most traditional Catholics to understand today because the Latin Mass has become a rallying point for a return to all traditional practices and an active faith that extends beyond Sundays.  We look at the Latin Mass, its sense of grandeur and ceremony, its reverence, and its beauty as a means of bringing back not just reverence in general but the cultural practices that made Catholicism extraordinary and different.  We all want a time when morals are not considered relative and there are clear boundaries that define goodness and truth.  

I'm thinking out loud now (and will probably pay for it later lol):  Sometimes we don't know a good thing until it's gone. Could this deep love and appreciation for the Faith and tradition that you mention have happened without  persecution? Think about it.

Quote: According to my understanding, (based on Dad) few actually received communion back in the 50s because of their overwhelming sense of sin and lack of a desire to go to confession.

That was due to the widespread and far reaching effects of Jansenism, which I mentioned earlier. It was condemned by the Church long ago, and Pope St. Pius X put the final nail in the coffin when he encouraged frequent Communion and lowered the age of First Communicants. The latter took place almost immediately, but the overall "I'm not worthy" mindset took a while longer to shake off. There are still some who believe that the practice of infrequent Communion is better than daily Communion. But the Popes of the last 100 years or so would not agree with that.

The other extreme is the "I AM worthy" attitude of certain politicians and Catholics who neither bother to practice their faith nor mind the state of their souls before approaching the Communion rail. Out of the two extremes, the latter is worse because it's sacrilege.

Quote: Faith seemed formulaic and stagnant.  So, Vatican II was supposed to change that.  Did it?  No, it confused Catholics and allowed moral relativism in infiltrate into our culture and practice.  We went to an extreme that became frightening and downright disrespectful in some cases.

I agree with you. I don't think Vatican II did what it was supposed to do. I'm not saying some good things didn't come out of it, but you and I will never be able to review the full damage or repairs in our lifetimes. I'm just wondering if there could have been sound alternatives to remedy certain attitudes prevalent in the Church before the Council. Of course, I understand some people believe we didn't need a cure.

- Lisa
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - by SCG - 07-23-2009, 08:17 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)