Post V2 Catholic Evangelization
#31
Well, when you really get to it, the Pope refusing to release the Secret and refusing to this day to consecrate Russia is the proximate cause. 
Reply
#32
(03-21-2010, 07:56 PM)Credo Wrote:
Quote:It depends on the area. I’ve been to Confession when I was the only guy in line, and I’ve been to places where I have had to literally wait on line for an hour for a free priest. I’ll grant that the sense of sin is not what it was, but that owes more to broader cultural forces than specifically to the Council.*

• The effects of affluences and the influences of modern, popular psychology deserve much of the credit for this.

I think it's more due to the time of the year than the area. During Advent and Lent, especially just before Christmas and Easter, the lines or the wait to the Confessional will be longer than other times of the year.

I think blaming the culture is a cop out, for various reasons, as I've pointed out in past posts.

1)The Church grew amidst the culture of pagan, decadent Rome during its first three centuries of its existence, in spite of the fact they were surrounded by a degenerate culture at the time, which in many ways, resembles our own. Hugh Hefner and his fellow travelers would have felt right at home there. If the Church is in good shape, chances are the culture will be too, and if it's in bad shape, ditto the culture. Even Fr. John Corapi said that several years ago.


2) Those who promoted, defended, lauded, etc.Vatican II promised us a renewal, more vocations, conversions, reverts, Mass attendance and participation in the Sacraments, etc. but the exact opposite happened. In fact, the things that were supposed to go up went down, and the things that were supposed to go down went up.   







Quote:True, but I have to say I cannot recall an SSPX priest ever doing the same after years of listening to dozens of them at Mass. There are some topics which are delicate, and many priests might consider this one of them. More preaching on the “life issues” is needed all around.

My guess is that it would be a case of "preaching to the choir" when you have more than a few attendees who have families of 6 or 7 kids. To them, it's a given regarding life issues. Still, a reminder every now and then certainly doesn't hurt regardless of which TLM one attends. 



Quote:And as far as post V2 evangelization, that is really nill these days.  We have been dealt with a major guilt complex, and evangelization in the post-conciliar Church is dealt with hesitantly, if not at all

Quote:Evangelization is dealt with all the time. Just search the Vatican’s website. It can be further argued that the African synod of last fall – the second in history, if memory serves – was motivated with the continued evangelization of the continent in mind.


This begs the questions: Why is the Vatican motivated with evangelizing Africa when prelates such as Cardinal Walter Kasper and Bishop William Lori, among others, say it isn't necessary to convert to Catholicism to be saved? They've said this about Protestants and Jews, among other faiths.

What exactly is the type of Catholicism they are trying to convert the Africans to? Is it one where false forms of inculturation are widespread, as well as liturgical abuse so prevelant in the NOM? If so, why bother? They'd be better off trying to convert them through some of the Eastern Catholic Rites, such as the Ge'ez Rite.


Quote:As far as thinking outside the West, you sidestep the fact the Church has lost many adherents in Latin America, and even the Philippines is having a vocations crisis

Quote:Yes, but I fail to see how that is exclusively the failure of the Church of the last fifty years as opposed to the Church of the last 100, 200 or 500 years.

Well, you did say to "think outside the West" so I gave a couple of examples or so to demonstrate that it's not just a Western or cultural phenomenon.  Not to mention the policy of dialogue, convergence, and peaceful co-existence that the Church has, for the most part, adopted post Vatican II.
Reply
#33
What catholic masses r u speakin about gigas?
Last time I checked the NO was a potestant bastard mass with catholic paperwork
Just sayin
Reply
#34
franklinf Wrote:You're right, V2 didn't introduce the problems in the Church. What it did was tear down the defenses.

I think the above statement is substantive, but for different reasons than you might guess.

The problem lay in the Catholic world in general, and especially in the United States. The "ghetto mentality" which rightly or wrongly characterized Catholicism in the 1920s, '30s, '40s and '50s produced generations of Catholics who were quite cozy in their faith, thank-you very much. However, the same Catholics were so sheltered and unfamiliar with the outside world, so cut-off from the intellectual and philosophical debates of the age, that when confronted with - forgive me - real life, Catholics were totally unprepared.

I travel quite heavily in traditionalist circles and I see the same problems looming for the children of such folk. Kids are so drilled in coughing up Baltimore Catechism answers, to the negligence of critical thinking, that I would not be supprised to see the same unraveling in traditionalists circles in the next few decades as we saw in the larger Church fifty years ago.

Because we are so drilled with concepts of the Church as a monolithic institution, I wonder if we Catholic parents, teachers, and neighbors neglect the beam in our own eye in our search for institutional scapegoats over there (i.e.: Vatican II, liberalism)?
Reply
#35
Quote: However, the same Catholics were so sheltered and unfamiliar with the outside world, so cut-off from the intellectual and philosophical debates of the age, that when confronted with - forgive me - real life, Catholics were totally unprepared
Complete drivel and rubbish.  Immigrant Catholics knew EXACTLY how the world functions as they learned all the hard lessons of the street.

And we knew exactly what the debate was, mostly between Jewish socialists and Catholics.  Fr. Fahey, Fulton Sheen, Fr. Feeney, Fr. Coughlin, and the layman (Breen? forgot his name)  who took on Hollywood and won in I believe the 30s knew exactly who our enemies were and fought and won.  The Catholic Church was the leader against the Communist infiltration of this nation.  The Catholic Church stood against the Jewish atheists and commies.  The people who don't know how the world works are the post Vat. II liberation theology Catholics (which characterized my teachers in "Catholic" school) who reject that the City of Man is a sewer and try to establish heaven on earth.  If you want an example of someone who doesn't know how the world works, read Caritas in Veritate.

The Church abandoned the fight and lost Faith.  Vatican II was our document of surrender.
Reply
#36
(03-21-2010, 11:08 PM)Credo Wrote:
franklinf Wrote:You're right, V2 didn't introduce the problems in the Church. What it did was tear down the defenses.

I think the above statement is substantive, but for different reasons than you might guess.

The problem lay in the Catholic world in general, and especially in the United States. The "ghetto mentality" which rightly or wrongly characterized Catholicism in the 1920s, '30s, '40s and '50s produced generations of Catholics who were quite cozy in their faith, thank-you very much. However, the same Catholics were so sheltered and unfamiliar with the outside world, so cut-off from the intellectual and philosophical debates of the age, that when confronted with - forgive me - real life, Catholics were totally unprepared.

I travel quite heavily in traditionalist circles and I see the same problems looming for the children of such folk. Kids are so drilled in coughing up Baltimore Catechism answers, to the negligence of critical thinking, that I would not be supprised to see the same unraveling in traditionalists circles in the next few decades as we saw in the larger Church fifty years ago.

Because we are so drilled with concepts of the Church as a monolithic institution, I wonder if we Catholic parents, teachers, and neighbors neglect the beam in our own eye in our search for institutional scapegoats over there (i.e.: Vatican II, liberalism)?

I second that notion - complete drivel and rubbish. 

Credo Wrote:when confronted with - forgive me - real life, Catholics were totally unprepared.

If by "real life" you mean the progression into an atheistic society that teaches our kids that we evolved from monkeys and that human beings aren't true human beings until born, thus it is O.K. to murder them in the womb, then yes, they were unprepared for your "real life" because your "real life" is of the devil, and they were living the TRUE "real life" in Christ - and as James02 so very well put it, they knew full well who their enemies were and how to combat them.  It wasn't until Vatican II that confusion was wrought in the Church by those sworn to uphold her, making the faithful believe that your "real life" was easily compatible with the Catholic religion.  Thus the "smoke of Satan" entered the Church.  Need I say more?
Reply
#37
(03-22-2010, 12:07 AM)James02 Wrote:
Quote: However, the same Catholics were so sheltered and unfamiliar with the outside world, so cut-off from the intellectual and philosophical debates of the age, that when confronted with - forgive me - real life, Catholics were totally unprepared
Complete drivel and rubbish.  Immigrant Catholics knew EXACTLY how the world functions as they learned all the hard lessons of the street.

And we knew exactly what the debate was, mostly between Jewish socialists and Catholics.  Fr. Fahey, Fulton Sheen, Fr. Feeney, Fr. Coughlin, and the layman (Breen? forgot his name)  who took on Hollywood and won in I believe the 30s knew exactly who our enemies were and fought and won.  The Catholic Church was the leader against the Communist infiltration of this nation.  The Catholic Church stood against the Jewish atheists and commies.  The people who don't know how the world works are the post Vat. II liberation theology Catholics (which characterized my teachers in "Catholic" school) who reject that the City of Man is a sewer and try to establish heaven on earth.  If you want an example of someone who doesn't know how the world works, read Caritas in Veritate.

The Church abandoned the fight and lost Faith.  Vatican II was our document of surrender.

The last line of this post is VERY well put.  :clap:
Reply
#38
(03-17-2010, 08:14 AM)Ockham Wrote:
(03-17-2010, 06:12 AM)Credo Wrote: One is hard pressed to find a practicing Christian who attends the revised Mass and Office who actually doesn't believe in the Real Presence and Confession. I don't have time to go into it right now, but the surveys that traditionalists often cite to show the supposed drop in belief in these things are very misleading, and were intentionally designed to be so. 

I find them all the time.  Besides my ancedotal evidence you can also find independent surveys confirming the same thing.  The way we pray/worship is the way we believe.  The lack of reverence and rubics in the Novus Ordo produces a diminished belief structure in those who attend it.   The NO resembles a Lutheran service more than the UA so it's no wonder they share views on the Real Presence.   You would be hard pressed to find a UA participant who doesn't believe in transubstantiation.

"You would be hard pressed to find a UA participant who doesn't believe in transubstantiation."

Correlation does not mean causation, the vast majority of UA participants actively seek it out, because they are
concerned about reverence.
Reply
#39
(03-21-2010, 11:08 PM)Credo Wrote:
franklinf Wrote:You're right, V2 didn't introduce the problems in the Church. What it did was tear down the defenses.

I think the above statement is substantive, but for different reasons than you might guess.

The problem lay in the Catholic world in general, and especially in the United States. The "ghetto mentality" which rightly or wrongly characterized Catholicism in the 1920s, '30s, '40s and '50s produced generations of Catholics who were quite cozy in their faith, thank-you very much. However, the same Catholics were so sheltered and unfamiliar with the outside world, so cut-off from the intellectual and philosophical debates of the age, that when confronted with - forgive me - real life, Catholics were totally unprepared.

You were alive then, right?  I wasn't, so I wouldn't make this assumption.  But I know my parents were, and they were not naive and unprepared intellectually, philosophically, or otherwise.  What they were unprepared for was V2 and the fallout from that.

Quote:I travel quite heavily in traditionalist circles and I see the same problems looming for the children of such folk. Kids are so drilled in coughing up Baltimore Catechism answers, to the negligence of critical thinking, that I would not be supprised to see the same unraveling in traditionalists circles in the next few decades as we saw in the larger Church fifty years ago.

So, children are supposed to dissect the Summa?

I thought we learned our lesson about dissing rote learning in this country.  Remember "New Math"?  That was "critical thinking" and we have a bunch of mathematical retards now.  Memorize your times tables before you try algebraic equations.  One can't think critically with no grounding to push off against.  If one doesn't know the stuff in the Catechism, deeper theology will escape them.

Quote:Because we are so drilled with concepts of the Church as a monolithic institution, I wonder if we Catholic parents, teachers, and neighbors neglect the beam in our own eye in our search for institutional scapegoats over there (i.e.: Vatican II, liberalism)?

Why do you even hang out at this forum?  Wouldn't you be happier at CAF or something?
Reply
#40
QuisUtDeus Wrote:You were alive then, right?

No, but are we to limit our discussion of the human experience to those events through which we've lived?

Quote:I wasn't, so I wouldn't make this assumption.

Neither was I, but through the wonder of books and research one can make such conclusions.

Quote:I thought we learned our lesson about dissing rote learning in this country.

Let's not derail this thread by going into all the education problems this nation has. We could chat for quite a while on this point.

I'm just telling of a major problem I see on the horizon. I've sat down with groups of traditionalist students, high schoolers, and asked them questions, definitions and such. They're pretty good with that, they all do well on their catechism exams. But I've also asked basic apologetic questions like why does Jesus tell people to call no one father, but we Catholics do?," or "What does incense symbolize in the Mass?" In response I heard only cricket chirps in reply. Once one takes the students off of the standard Q&A line of thinking, the ability of the students to articulate their faith drops. Some of these students will be in college next year. How well do you think the Q&A bit will hold up then?

Quote:Why do you even hang out at this forum?  Wouldn't you be happier at CAF or something?

I do not think I would. I find many of the posters on the Catholic Answer Forums to lack much backgroup knowledge of the faith which - post for post - I do not see on this site. I'm also one of the earlist extant members still posting on this forum, so why end a good thing?

As for my comment which elicited your rather snooty reply, I was making the sociological point that many Catholics first look for corporate reasons to their woes whereas, if faced with a similar apostasy, more individualist groups like Mohammedans or Protestants would be more likely to blame the apostates themselves rather than plotting abstract lines of philosophical developments, or making fatuous claims that documents stemming from a Church council no one reads would cause many people to leave the religion.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)