Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you
#39
doc Wrote:Most of the people who were alive prior to the Council want nothing to do with the traditional Mass or anything else from that time.  I say most

Well, I’ll speak for myself. The consensus was that the Mass (and religion in general) needed to change. Maybe there was something in the water, but most of us drank it. When the changes came I was teenager and as you know, most kids adjust. Those who were adults and middle age then (senior citizens now) were like RR’s mom who either dropped out and never came back, or stayed and got all happy about the changes. This was definitely the “I’m gonna find myself” generation and the irony is they lost something very precious. 

Now the people who were old when the changes came were truly lost.. just lost. But they bit the bullet and kept coming every Sunday because that’s what they were taught to do. God bless them, they are long gone from this world now. At any rate, Doc, I think you are right about most.

doc Wrote:Just because they memorized the Baltimore Catechism doesn't mean they knew anything more about the Faith than the average NO pew potato nowadays. Maybe they could repeat it by rote, but had they internalized it?  Evidence says no, they hadn't.

Now I agree with you 99.9 percent here, with the disclaimer that I think memorizing the Baltimore Catechism is much better than the spiritual pabulum children were fed in the 70s and 80s, which was so lukewarm they vomited upon swallowing, and thus retained little or nothing. I, on the other hand, knew my Commandments backwards and forwards … in order! But IF, as you say, it is not internalized (I like that word!) then it was no more nourishing than the puked-up pabulum of today. I will have to say, however, that if a Catholic of my generation later experiences a re-conversion, they will at least have a firm foundation to stand on. Much of what I learned as a child never truly left me. It was retained in my being and made a difference in forming my decision to return to the Church; e.g. the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the primacy of Peter and church leadership, the communion of Saints, etc. How many baby Catholics today are even taught this? It’s pathetic. Like my pastor says, every DRE from the past 30 years should be taken out and shot.

doc Wrote:So, yes, a Council was needed.  What was needed even more, however, was a strong pope to preside over it.  Instead, we got a naive optimist followed by an ineffectual hand wringer.  They sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind.

Now wait, Doc. The Pope who presided over most of Vatican II and issued the new Mass is the same Pope who wrote Humane Vitae, and he was mocked by liberal clergy and theologians and ignored by many Catholics. No, I can’t say Pope Paul was an ineffectual hand wringer or a Modernist hell-bent in destroying the Church. In the late 60s, Humane Vitae was a big issue. Outside of that, I think that all Post Council Popes have been weak and timid with regards to the liturgy and the demands of the bishops. Too much local jurisdiction was given to the bishops at Vatican II and now the Popes are stuck with this.

- Lisa
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - by SCG - 07-23-2009, 10:32 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)