Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you
#71
(07-26-2009, 11:02 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(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.
Right, so things were not so bad prior to the council.

Quote:Neither did the liberal clergy who were very aware of what they were aiming to destroy.
This is where we part company. They despised their heritage (Tradition). They couldn't wait to destroy it and remake it as they saw fit ... then try to hide behind antiquarian arguments when questioned by those Catholics who were greatly disturbed by the gradual destruction of  every aspect of Catholic life.

Quote: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?
Because sheep follow their shepherds. That's why Our Lord warned us to BEWARE of false prophets.


Reply
#72
They were sheep following their shepherds – unable (or unwilling) to recognize the wolves in disguise.

Why is that?


Trust perhaps?  Can we really accuse them of having a level of trust that was unwarranted?  I think that an unintended result of Vatican I's teaching on the gift of infallibility produced a servile obedience in many Catholics.  Something important was uninentionally being ommitted perhaps from catechesis.  On the other hand, it is quite obvious to me that the Church hierarchy unjustly expected the faithful to assume that everything they foisted upon them was healthy.  To take advantage of the faithful's perfectly justified trust in such ways was unjust.

As C.S. Lewis said while the reforms were in full swing:  "Christ said, 'Feed my lambs,' not, 'Perform experiments on my rats.'"
Reply
#73
me Wrote:No, those good sisters did not take their heritage for granted.

LS Wrote:Right, so things were not so bad prior to the council.

How much of the Catholic population do you think were Sisters?

me Wrote:Neither did the liberal clergy who were very aware of what they were aiming to destroy.

LS Wrote:This is where we part company. They despised their heritage (Tradition). They couldn't wait to destroy it and remake it as they saw fit ...

Now you're failing to see my sarcasm. I meant exactly what you are saying here. I said they were aiming to destroy it . Tradition was "the enemy" and so it was very much on the front burner of their minds, so to speak. 
Reply
#74
(07-27-2009, 11:59 AM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
me Wrote:No, those good sisters did not take their heritage for granted.

LS Wrote:Right, so things were not so bad prior to the council.

How much of the Catholic population do you think were Sisters?

Most of them came from Catholic families, didn't they? Vocations typically do not come from bad families. 

Reply
#75
(07-27-2009, 11:34 AM)Zakhur Wrote: Trust perhaps?  Can we really accuse them of having a level of trust that was unwarranted?  I think that an unintended result of Vatican I's teaching on the gift of infallibility produced a servile obedience in many Catholics.  Something important was uninentionally being ommitted perhaps from catechesis.  On the other hand, it is quite obvious to me that the Church hierarchy unjustly expected the faithful to assume that everything they foisted upon them was healthy.  To take advantage of the faithful's perfectly justified trust in such ways was unjust.

Blind obedience. Ignorance of the Faith. Indifference. Or maybe they were already infected with liberalism and me-ism to some degree. Or maybe theirs was the generation that should have heeded the words of Christ when he warned the Pharisees: "You have made void the commandment of God by your tradition." This does not sound like a generation most traditionalists would want to emulate.

Let’s hear what another traditionalist had to say:

Quote: 1950-ism the sort of Catholicism from the 1950s that led us to the Vatican II conciliar collapse. The appearance of religion without the substance. A Pharisaic sentimentalism. A spiritual diet of candy and sweets. Like trying to live off candy. – Bp Richard Williamson
Reply
#76
Then it is as Archbishop LeFebvre said.  God has chastised the Church for a widespread sin which the two of us have just adequately described.  The chastisement is a lack of faith leading to sins against the faith.  God removes his grace when offense is committed, and the removal of grace corresponds exactly to the type of sin.
Reply
#77
The sin for which we are being punished may not have been against faith.  Fr. Garrigou LaGrange concluded about Modernism that it had been caused by the "freezing of charity" in the hearts of Christians, and he quoted a passage from Scripture that seems to prophesy this.

Now charity is necessary to continue loving Eternal Truth.  One cannot love Eternal Truth just by feeling good about it.  One must make ACTS of love, and it is a sacrificial kind of love.
Reply
#78
Look. I’m not disparaging everything about 1950s Catholicism. I grew up in the 50s. I thank God that I was born then. I thank God for my Catholic upbringing, for the wonderful priests and Sisters who taught me my Faith. They did a good job – but that’s not to say there wasn't room for improvement. I am NOT saying we’re in better shape now. But it’s dishonest to paint an idyllic picture of the past, as many trads are wont to do. I think it’s dishonest to view through rosy glasses ANY time in the Church’s history – whether it’s dreaming about medieval schools of mystics or the apostolic days of early Christianity. Every age had its share of shame and glory, persecution and peace. We don’t move forward unless we admit our mistakes (past and present) and stop repeating them. Tradition for the mere sake of tradition and change for the sake of change is wrong. And the only age in history that will truly be our boast will happen after the Second Coming.

Of course, I understand this means nothing to those who believe today’s hierarchy are not legitimate authority – that the modern Church is a false church and that these are the worst times ever. But that's not the discussion I had in mind when I created this thread. 

- Lisa
Reply
#79
(07-27-2009, 01:24 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: Look. I’m not disparaging everything about 1950s Catholicism. I grew up in the 50s. I thank God that I was born then. I thank God for my Catholic upbringing, for the wonderful priests and Sisters who taught me my Faith. They did a good job – but that’s not to say there wasn't room for improvement. I am NOT saying we’re in better shape now. But it’s dishonest to paint an idyllic picture of the past, as many trads are wont to do. I think it’s dishonest to view through rosy glasses ANY time in the Church’s history – whether it’s dreaming about medieval schools of mystics or the apostolic days of early Christianity. Every age had its share of shame and glory, persecution and peace. We don’t move forward unless we admit our mistakes (past and present) and stop repeating them. Tradition for the mere sake of tradition and change for the sake of change is wrong. And the only age in history that will truly be our boast will happen after the Second Coming.

Of course, I understand this means nothing to those who believe today’s hierarchy are not legitimate authority – that the modern Church is a false church and that these are the worst times ever. But that's not the discussion I had in mind when I created this thread.   

- Lisa

Lisa,

Tradition means "to transmit". What is tradition other than the passing on of truth and proper worship. Tradition certainly is for the sake of Tradition.

Quote:They did a good job – but that’s not to say there wasn't room for improvement.
There's always room for improvement.

Quote:I am NOT saying we’re in better shape now.
Wow, that's quite an admission. Do you think we're about the same then? Maybe a little worse? A lot worse?

Quote:But it’s dishonest to paint an idyllic picture of the past, as many trads are wont to do.
Nobody has painted any "idyllic picture of the past". There is no dishonesty in seeing what has been quite manifest for decades now.

Reply
#80
(07-27-2009, 01:24 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: Look. I’m not disparaging everything about 1950s Catholicism. I grew up in the 50s. I thank God that I was born then. I thank God for my Catholic upbringing, for the wonderful priests and Sisters who taught me my Faith. They did a good job – but that’s not to say there wasn't room for improvement. I am NOT saying we’re in better shape now. But it’s dishonest to paint an idyllic picture of the past, as many trads are wont to do. I think it’s dishonest to view through rosy glasses ANY time in the Church’s history – whether it’s dreaming about medieval schools of mystics or the apostolic days of early Christianity. Every age had its share of shame and glory, persecution and peace. We don’t move forward unless we admit our mistakes (past and present) and stop repeating them. Tradition for the mere sake of tradition and change for the sake of change is wrong. And the only age in history that will truly be our boast will happen after the Second Coming.

Of course, I understand this means nothing to those who believe today’s hierarchy are not legitimate authority – that the modern Church is a false church and that these are the worst times ever. But that's not the discussion I had in mind when I created this thread.   

- Lisa


Lisa,

I have no illusions about the Church's history.  I have studied it too much to yearn for some kind of "better time" in which there were no problems.  If there are people who describe themselves as traditionalists and hold fast to any of the illusions you describe above, they do not hold on to those illusions because of some vague thing called "traditionalism."  They do so because they are uninformed. 

Who said anything about today's ecclesiastical authority being illegitimate?  That's not the point, and those who say so are simply wrong.  The sedevacantist position is dead wrong.

It's also incorrect to assume that today's crisis is not the greatest yet faced by the Church in her history.  It could be, and very well seems to be.  There are signs that show this if you can read them.  Do you not realize the catastrophe that the modern liturgical reform represents?  If you have not read what Cardinal Ratzinger has said about it, then you really need to find the quotes.  Find out what Deitrich von Hildebrand has said about our times.  It is nothing to brush off.  This is not illusion.  These two men represent two of the most incisive mindsof the 20th century.  The modern era represents a horrendous revolt against Christ.  There can be no compromize with it.  Read Warran Carroll on this.  The Church hierarchy has attempted a compromise, and it has been disastrous.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)