Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you
#61
Anyway, back to the topic..................

Quote:Let me turn it into a question and ask if traditional Catholics will admit that renewal (restoration) in the 20th century Church was needed? If so, how would you have effected change and/or dealt with problematic issues in the Pre-Vatican II Church if you had the know-how, the power and authority?

- Lisa

What was needed was echoes of church teachings - perhaps louder and clearer, but pure echoes non the less. No renewal, restoration, regeneration - the world yearned for echoes but got "something better" instead. :(

There is only one way that today's mess could have materialized, and that way is the same way any enemy can hope to to claim total victory in the shortest span of time, namely, infiltrate your opponent.

Like it or not, time is short and there simply was no other way for the enemy to hope to accomplish victory - and tho there has been no total victory yet, the first and most important goal of the enemy has been met, namely, to divide. Divide, then conquer - the conquer part will never be entirely met, and perhaps the enemy is well aware of that fact, yet they are going for broke regardless.

The Magisterium has been infiltrated, sad as it is, believe it, and everything else falls into place God help us!

All I know is that the immortal soul of humans must have an unimaginable value, based on the amount of effort put into it's destruction by the enemy.




Reply
#62
(07-26-2009, 06:00 PM)Credo Wrote:
James02 Wrote:If we had stayed militant, the USA would have been a completely Catholic country by 1960.

This is debatable. Nineteen-fifties Catholicism in America was largely external, in general.

Really? Isn't external religion a manifestation of the internal? I would say that the commandments were better kept in general in the 1950's, wouldn't you?

Quote:Firstly, consider that everyone involved in Vatican II, to a man, was trained in the wonderful 1920s, 30s, and 40s (including the highly influential American contingent). "Yes-men" were being consecrated bishops left and right,

Vatican II involved almost all the bishops. That does not mean they were all Modernists as many opposed the documents...this is documented. Many wanted The Blessed Virgin declared Mediatrix of all graces. The liberal and formerly silenced theologians came out of the woodwork in the Paul VI portion of the council.

Quote:catechism was largely rote memorization and the liturgy was not appreciated.

How would you suggest children learn their catechism?

Quote:We make a huge mistake to think that what we see at our SSPX or FSSP chapel nowadays is somehow a time capsule of what things were like in the first half of the twentieth century and before. This is not to say there weren't many souls striving for holiness in those days. Yet while American Christianity look nice statically in the 1950s, it was a weak house. A few gusts of challenge came from secularism and the whole structure went reeling. Does this justify a gutting of the customs of the Latin Rite, and an injection of liberalism? No, but we need to keep things in perspective.

The mistake is to think that SSPX and FSSP (or any other trad group) give us any more than a small fraction of what we had in the previous generations. The teaching sisters are gone. The authority structure is gone. The Catholic universities are gone. The seminaries are gone. The Catholic grade and high schools are no different that their secular counterparts. There is so much that is missing today that you don't even realize ... and this is manifest in your post above.
Reply
#63
Lamentabili sane...... Traditionalists should not want to glorify or imitate Pre-Vatican II Catholics. Many of your ancestors took their rich heritage for granted. YOU DON'T. When traditional Catholic morals, worship, and doctrine become "internalized" in the Faithful worldwide, hopefully we will be graced enough to know what to repeat and what not to repeat from the past.

- Lisa
Reply
#64
(07-26-2009, 08:26 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: Really? Isn't external religion a manifestation of the internal?

It should be… of course and always. What we believe on the inside is manifest in our worship, our posture and gestures, and in our attitude toward our neighbor.

But the proper externals are not always an indication of proper belief. Jesus condemned the hypocrisy of the outward "show" of religion countless times in Scripture.

- Lisa
Reply
#65
(07-26-2009, 08:46 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(07-26-2009, 08:26 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: Really? Isn't external religion a manifestation of the internal?

It should be… of course and always. What we believe on the inside is manifest in our worship, our posture and gestures, and in our attitude toward our neighbor.

But the proper externals are not always an indication of proper belief. Jesus condemned the hypocrisy of the outward "show" of religion countless times in Scripture.

- Lisa

True, but the wrong or altogether missing externals do not correspond to anything but corrupt internals.
Reply
#66
(07-26-2009, 08:34 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: Lamentabili sane...... Traditionalists should not want to glorify or imitate Pre-Vatican II Catholics. Many of your ancestors took their rich heritage for granted. YOU DON'T. When traditional Catholic morals, worship, and doctrine become "internalized" in the Faithful worldwide, hopefully we will be graced enough to know what to repeat and what not to repeat from the past.

- Lisa

Lisa,

The young women who became teaching sisters in the 30's, 40's, and 50's did not take their rich heritage for granted. I think you misunderstand what I am saying.

LS
Reply
#67
In a certain sense it can be said, if one thinks one's ancestors took their heritage for granted, then the heritage that one thinks one's ancestors took for granted is in danger of being utterly lost in one's own time.  It was protected before, now it is not.  Someone opened the gates of the city and let in the barbarians.  Only the guards (or shephards) have the power to do that.
Reply
#68
(07-26-2009, 09:07 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: Lisa,

The young women who became teaching sisters in the 30's, 40's, and 50's did not take their rich heritage for granted. I think you misunderstand what I am saying.

LS

No, those good sisters did not take their heritage for granted. Neither did the liberal clergy who were very aware of what they were aiming to destroy. The majority of Pre-Vatican II Catholics accepted wholesale the changes of Vatican II. Some begrudgingly, some enthusiastically, some falling somewhere in between. They were sheep following their shepherds – unable (or unwilling) to recognize the wolves in disguise.

Why is that?

- Lisa
Reply
#69
That happened because most people in the Church had forgotten what Archbishop LeFebvre realized:  absolute unquestioning obedience is not a Catholic virtue.  Somehow or other the virtue of obedience was distorted in practice and in theory prior to Vatican II.  It came to be believed by many in the Church Militant that the Authentic Magisterium was incapable of removing itself from the Holy Ghost's protection against the teaching of errors and serious violations of justice and therefore endangerement of the people's faith.

That is one explanation I have read.

Thus, I would say that Vatican I's teaching on the ways in  which the Magisterium exercises its teaching authority was insufficiently complete, or at least that a council or encyclical was needed to clarify what had become unclear about this matter.  For Satan has used this lack of clarity in this matter to lead some into a montanist way of life and sedevacantism.  It was also most certainly the direct cause of the Humanae Vitae rebellion.  For pastors did not realize that a pope could teach something infallibly, without formally invoking his infallible charism, in virtue of the thing taught having been long-taught by previous popes and bishops.  That is how the Authentic Magisterium normally operates in safeguarding the Depositum Fidei.  But the distinction of the Authentic Magisterium was apparently widely forgotten.
Reply
#70
Among the many factors that contributed to the crisis of faith after VII were two that were (still are) significant. First, the intent, subtlety and nuances of the original VII documents, were not immediately realized, and its promulgations were reduced to popular interpretations , ridiculed, and misled by a mainly secular (if not anti-Catholic) mass media. Second, the eras after 1960s coincided with an 'explosion' of a very cynical and rebellious culture - the age of Aquarius and Capricorn, the hippies, anti-establishment, libertine or existentialist Me-generation. secular if not anti-religion, etc. So the seeds were sown among many types of soil. Now we are seeing the fruits.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)