Are things getting better or worse in the Church?
#31
(12-26-2009, 08:46 AM)Servus_Maria Wrote:
(12-26-2009, 06:36 AM)Baskerville Wrote:
(12-26-2009, 06:13 AM)Achonry Wrote: I am not sure either ! I am worried that there is more acceptance for traditional Catholic worship (or Conservative) but less interest in traditional Catholic doctrine. I see many priests less condemnatory of the Traditional Mass, but I wonder if it's true liberalism (=couldn't care less) creeping in. In England there are many traditional Masses, but not always an increase in numbers of laity attending.In my Parish we have the Traditional Mass on three Sundays in the month,but the numbers have not increased over the last three years. I have an awful feeling that many priests and even bishops are growing War Weary and are not bothered about what happens in Church. To give an example, recently we had a modern Jesuit offering Mass in our parish and the week before a Bishop. Both agreed to celebrate Eastward facing, (New Rite) without a whimper of a complaint and did it - by today's standards - carefully and reverently. But, I wonder what it all means. These two clerics may just as happily the next day commit all sorts of strange and weird liturgical goings-on ; maybe not. Are we becoming a Comprehensive Church, which since the Motu Proprio, accommodates even traditionalists - High Low and Middle churchmen ? (Bishop Fellay's Zoo Cage Catholicism is apposite)

We have this exact thing in the NO Church I was talking about. If Fr.R Celebrates Mass youll get a sermon on the evils of abortion and how we must follow our conscience according to the light of the Church and a Mass with a Gold Chalice the Roman Canon used incense and parts sung. If Fr P Celebrates you get a sermon on how the Church needs to accept Homosexuals how Obama is the best President he can remember and how the Church is out of touch for not ordaining women and being against the healthcare bill, and at Mass you get Eucharistic Prayer two and that ad libbed so there is no mention of God in the Male sense etc. and glass cups for The sacred Blood.
Then literally the next week Fr. R we'll say how courageous the Bishops are in standing up to our Catholic politicians who support "the evil obamacare bill" It would be laughable if not so sad. There is a low Church for the liberals and a High Church for the conservatives and this all in the same parish. I think best case scenario is that it will go on like this until the older liberals go away.

How old is Fr. R and how old is Fr. P?

Also if Fr. P is using glass to hold the precious blood or changing the words of the Mass you should inform him that this has been specifically condemned by the Vatican. Sometimes a gentle reminder starts them thinking. The document is called Redemptoris Sacramentum....I think...

Fr. R late 30ish Fr.P just celebrated his 72 birthday. So yeah this is part of the problem.
Reply
#32
(12-26-2009, 09:49 AM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:
(12-26-2009, 04:24 AM)Baskerville Wrote: Also right now I am unable to attend my SSPX Church so I dont have the TLM to relieve my fear. I dunno. Maybe I am just an ekklesial  hypochondriac. :)

Could be worse.  You could be like me!

-No Catholic friends anywhere near my age living within 100 miles
-working 16-hour shifts on the weekends, thus unable to fulfill a steady Sunday obligaion, and forced to go to Mass on a weekday
-most parishes in the city are NO, save one which holds Mass on Sundays
-the parishes you can go to are usually run by priests who are seemingly indifferent to tradition and the conditions of souls
-no one in your family is Catholic, and they support you in no way whatsoever

Try holding your faith in this environment!


Then again, I'm sure some folks will just call good ol' Laramie a cry baby.  Back to work I go.

Yuck that sucks man.
Reply
#33
I remember in the early 70's in Philadelphia, the Novus Ordo had some reverence, we had childrens' mass, communion on the tongue, Baltimore Catechism, the May procession, girls had to cover their heads with beanies, proper behavior in Church,  There were leftovers from the TLM that I recognized when I first saw the TLM at the SSPX chapel. 

Cardinal Krol was very slow in implementing any changes.  There was a rumor that JPII hauled him on the carpet when he came to town about implementing Vatican II. 

There was little damage done to the Church buildings though.  Most of the altars were separated from the tabernacle and only moved forward a bit.  (which means many of them can go back)  In the 80's and 90's the altar rails started to go but not many of them.  A few churches have closed and some modern monstrosities have gone up. 

The only real destruction of  major sort has been in the Universities with the help of the feminist nuns, the Jesuits, the liberal Augustinians and the gay network. 

Bishop Williamson once said that Philadelphia was holding onto the faith well considering the crisis.  He attributes that to St. John Neumann putting down some huge Catholic roots in the diocese. 

While it's awful from a trad perspective, a person can see a rebirth happening very easily here and maybe some signs of it. 

Right now, despite the resistance and strategic stunts of the Cardinal (priests are not allowed to promote the TLM from the pulpit of the Novus Ordo Mass.  It has to bubble up organically.  In other words he's trying to keep people in the dark about tradition) 

But there are too many Irish and Italian and Polish and German Grandmoms still alive and devout. 

In the 80's the only TLMs possibly were happening in clandestine locations by a select few (including seminarians)  you could not find one if you tried.

In the 90's the SSPX came to town and the Cardinal established just a few indults to counter them.   

After the Motu Proprio more have sprung up, small at first, then they are becoming more frequent in the same locations.  Some parishes are warming up to it. 

Priests in some cases are using the Novus Ordo to start to train people to be ready for the TLM.  Communion on the Tongue, In Latin, following the rubrics from an orthodox perspective.  They know it's not perfect but it's a practical way to pull people back into the right frame of mind gently. 

There is a loooong way still to go, but I think we reached the breaking point sometime in JPII"s pontificate and I truly believe God held it together by just a few threads.  He left us just enough to start to rebuild with. 

We have just a few old-timers to teach the younger priests in person,  We have the SSPX preserving a pure strain of traditionalism purged of 50's Catholicism.  We have disenchanted young people looking for something real, tired as they are of Novus Ordoism.  We have young priests with gaps in their formation that they are filling in for themselves with Augustine and Aquinas.  They aren't perfect but they are young and they are leagues above the guys in their 50's and 60's who've never read an encyclical.

Again, things are bad and not to be tolerated and must be fought back.  But the practical realities are visible that a vigorous Catholicism can live in this diocese. 

I think if we get the consecration of Russia, everyone will feel its effects. 



Reply
#34
I'd like to know when in Church history all the priests have been saints who always said Mass reverently and never deviated from the rubrics, when all the bishops were completely docilely obedient to the Pope, when all the lay faithful knew their faith and always lived it perfectly in their daily lives?

The Church has been in crisis since Day 1.  To think otherwise is naivete....usually charming in a child, sometimes in a woman, never in a man. Some historical perspective would be refreshing.
Reply
#35
(12-26-2009, 11:35 PM)DrBombay Wrote: I'd like to know when in Church history all the priests have been saints who always said Mass reverently and never deviated from the rubrics, when all the bishops were completely docilely obedient to the Pope, when all the lay faithful knew their faith and always lived it perfectly in their daily lives?

The Church has been in crisis since Day 1.  To think otherwise is naivete....usually charming in a child, sometimes in a woman, never in a man. Some historical perspective would be refreshing.

So you think that there is no more of a crisis in the Church now then in 1959 :pazzo:
Reply
#36
(12-26-2009, 11:35 PM)DrBombay Wrote: I'd like to know when in Church history all the priests have been saints who always said Mass reverently and never deviated from the rubrics, when all the bishops were completely docilely obedient to the Pope, when all the lay faithful knew their faith and always lived it perfectly in their daily lives?

The Church has been in crisis since Day 1.  To think otherwise is naivete....usually charming in a child, sometimes in a woman, never in a man. Some historical perspective would be refreshing.

Not every Pope in the history of the Church has described the Church as in the process of "auto-destruction" and lamented that the "smoke of Satan" had infiltrated the Church up to the highest levels of the heirarchy.   That was followed by the next pope declaring a state of "silent apostasy" and  that was followed by a third Pope that said just prior to his election that  the Church is "like a boat sinking" "full of filth" and "in liturgical ruins."  

No one is expecting perfection this side of Heaven.  But let's not try to pretend that this crisis is just another blip on the monitor.   The Arian crisis stands out, the Great Schism and the Reformation as well, and this one blows them out of the water because the hierarchy has barely done a thing over the last few decades to address it.  Paul VI and JPII acknowledged it (JPII grudgingly at the end) but they both did nothing of real papal substance to stop it or stem it.

There are times of comparative peace and times of war.  We are in a big, big war right now.    

Reply
#37
(12-26-2009, 11:42 PM)Baskerville Wrote:
(12-26-2009, 11:35 PM)DrBombay Wrote: I'd like to know when in Church history all the priests have been saints who always said Mass reverently and never deviated from the rubrics, when all the bishops were completely docilely obedient to the Pope, when all the lay faithful knew their faith and always lived it perfectly in their daily lives?

The Church has been in crisis since Day 1.  To think otherwise is naivete....usually charming in a child, sometimes in a woman, never in a man. Some historical perspective would be refreshing.

So you think that there is no more of a crisis in the Church now then in 1959 :pazzo:

Please don't feed me that idealized version of 1950s Catholicism.  That's a load of crap.  All the bishops and priests that caused such havoc in the Church in the 60s and 70s grew up attending the traditional Mass and were trained in "traditional" seminaries, many of which would put even the SSPX to shame since all the classes were taught in Latin.  Don't confuse external observance with strong faith.  Sometimes the two are mutually exclusive.
Reply
#38
(12-26-2009, 11:48 PM)DrBombay Wrote: Please don't feed me that idealized version of 1950s Catholicism.  That's a load of crap.  All the bishops and priests that caused such havoc in the Church in the 60s and 70s grew up attending the traditional Mass and were trained in "traditional" seminaries, many of which would put even the SSPX to shame since all the classes were taught in Latin.  Don't confuse external observance with strong faith.  Sometimes the two are mutually exclusive.

Stage one of cancer is a lot better than stage three isn't it?  You were asked if you thought there is MORE of a crisis now than in the 1950s.
Reply
#39
(12-26-2009, 11:44 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(12-26-2009, 11:35 PM)DrBombay Wrote: I'd like to know when in Church history all the priests have been saints who always said Mass reverently and never deviated from the rubrics, when all the bishops were completely docilely obedient to the Pope, when all the lay faithful knew their faith and always lived it perfectly in their daily lives?

The Church has been in crisis since Day 1.  To think otherwise is naivete....usually charming in a child, sometimes in a woman, never in a man. Some historical perspective would be refreshing.

Not every Pope in the history of the Church has described the Church as in the process of "auto-destruction" and lamented that the "smoke of Satan" had infiltrated the Church up to the highest levels of the heirarchy.   That was followed by the next pope declaring a state of "silent apostasy" and  that was followed by a third Pope that said just prior to his election that  the Church is "like a boat sinking" "full of filth" and "in liturgical ruins."  

No one is expecting perfection this side of Heaven.  But let's not try to pretend that this crisis is just another blip on the monitor.   The Arian crisis stands out, the Great Schism and the Reformation as well, and this one blows them out of the water because the hierarchy has barely done a thing over the last few decades to address it.  Paul VI and JPII acknowledged it (JPII grudgingly at the end) but they both did nothing of real papal substance to stop it or stem it.

There are times of comparative peace and times of war.  We are in a big, big war right now.    

The pope is not now, nor has he ever been, a monarch with absolute power who can impose his will by fiat.

I've asked this question before and have not yet received an answer.  What if the pope decided to remove the Cardinal Archbishop of Los Angeles and the Cardinal refused to vacate his see?  What would the pope do...send in the Swiss Guard to forcibly remove him?  Ha. 

Sadly, the pope operates in the real world, not traddy fantasy land.  Since he has almost no temporal power at this moment in history, all he can do is beg, plead and cajole.  He has to pick his fights. Don't confuse the battle with the war.  We've been at war since Day 1...and we win, remember?
Reply
#40
(12-26-2009, 11:48 PM)DrBombay Wrote:
(12-26-2009, 11:42 PM)Baskerville Wrote:
(12-26-2009, 11:35 PM)DrBombay Wrote: I'd like to know when in Church history all the priests have been saints who always said Mass reverently and never deviated from the rubrics, when all the bishops were completely docilely obedient to the Pope, when all the lay faithful knew their faith and always lived it perfectly in their daily lives?

The Church has been in crisis since Day 1.  To think otherwise is naivete....usually charming in a child, sometimes in a woman, never in a man. Some historical perspective would be refreshing.

So you think that there is no more of a crisis in the Church now then in 1959 :pazzo:

Please don't feed me that idealized version of 1950s Catholicism.  That's a load of crap.  All the bishops and priests that caused such havoc in the Church in the 60s and 70s grew up attending the traditional Mass and were trained in "traditional" seminaries, many of which would put even the SSPX to shame since all the classes were taught in Latin.  Don't confuse external observance with strong faith.  Sometimes the two are mutually exclusive.

I was just picking a date before the council how about this sometime in Dec 1911 will that be better. Do you honestly think things were as bad then. And you knew what I meant by saying 1959 dont be cute.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)