a catholic "megachurch" (or what happens you merge 6 parishes)
#31
Nice wooden altar in Milwaukee, WI:
St. Anthony of Padua
http://www.flickr.com/photos/st-anthony-...512970387/ - View of sanctuary from nave
http://www.flickr.com/photos/st-anthony-...512967255/ - View of lower part of altar
http://www.flickr.com/photos/st-anthony-...513598986/ - Main part of altar

Built by German immigrants, just a handful of blocks away from the Polish church that ICKSP was "given," and a little bit aways from the Basilica of St. Josaphat (Polish-built).

Yay Milwaukee.

Also, St. Anthony's "does" a pretty good Novus Ordo.  
Reply
#32
(01-02-2011, 10:59 AM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote:
(01-02-2011, 02:17 AM)dark lancer Wrote: My point is not what was invested in the construction of such churches, but rather that many Catholics were more unprepared to resist the tide of Vatican II than many present-day trads would have you believe.

You make a fair point, but disregard how they became unprepared.  Because they put other things in front of Christ.  It's the root of the problem, not the result of the problem.

In a rarely seen event, Penelope decides to participate in a thread! Please pardon me as I ramble on here...

For what it's worth, I think DL has a good point. When I think about my mother and her peers, who comprise the first generation of Catholics to experience the NO for (almost) all of their lives, I see people who have been essentially indoctrinated into thinking that everything pre-VII is bad, bad, bad. I also have to wonder what was being taught in schools to kids from middle- and working-class families, because I also see a lot of people with very little critical thinking ability, and either an inability to or an unwillingness to think in terms other than in absolutes. This is especially true when it comes to the Church, as though they are willing to agree with anything that a priest says for the mere fact that he wears a collar. While their respect for the clergy is admirable, I think this is part of what let the crisis get as bad as it is.

On the other hand, I think this is also what led to a lot of nominal Catholics, who got inconsistent teachings from schools, CCD, etc. and instead of sorting through the contradictions and figuring out what the Church really teaches, it seems they just took everything at face value, without really knowing the faith well enough to pass it on.

I think what you've said, WRC, is partially true, that putting other things before Christ and the Church is part of what has perpetuated the crisis that the Church is seeing now. I'm not so sure that that was an intentional or malicious act committed by most of my mother's generation, though. I see it as being more cyclical, and that not being given the intellectual tools to actively "resist the tide of Vatican II" (to steal DL's phrase) has also perpetuated the problem.



Reply
#33
Social history is such a young field that I'm always amazed at how much people miss when they only consider major historical players.

I'd say in another 50 years or so it will be a common thing for armchair historians to consider the situation of the masses.
Reply
#34
(01-02-2011, 10:59 PM)cunctas_haereses Wrote: It's NOT the boomers, good grief.

It's 'the greatest generation' that was asleep at the wheel - they were the ADULTS then.

Boomers were children. I was 9 in '65 when that hideous council closed.

I was 13 when the Novus Ordo was jammed down our necks in record time.

You can't hang this on the boomers, sorry.   

Yeah!  :angrywom: Anymore about the boomers an I'll boomer you young 'uns wit a rollin' pin!!! 
"Not only are we all in the same boat, but we are all seasick.” --G.K. Chesterton
Reply
#35
(01-02-2011, 10:59 PM)cunctas_haereses Wrote: It's NOT the boomers, good grief.

It's 'the greatest generation' that was asleep at the wheel - they were the ADULTS then.

Boomers were children. I was 9 in '65 when that hideous council closed.

I was 13 when the Novus Ordo was jammed down our necks in record time.

You can't hang this on the boomers, sorry.   

You are so right!

The oldest boomers turned 19 in 1965, had been out of h.s. one year -- yeah, they had lots of influence in parishes!  And lots of boomers were bishops and cardinals participating in Vatican II, it's all the boomers' fault. 

Do the math, people.  The baby boom began in 1946.  If you were born in 1946, you were 20 in 1966 -- see how easy this is?  You were in school or working a first job.  You were not a bishop or even a priest.  Younger boomers were in kindergarten or grade school, if you consider the baby boom to have ended in 1961, which is a commonly used cut-off date. 

Why are you younger people so anti-boomer?  You think we asked to be part of a huge baby boom and have the media talk about us all the time?  We absolutely did not ask for the media attention or want it.  Nor did we enjoy all the competition to get into college or to get good jobs.  We older boomers have never been as successful financially, as a group, as our parents were and it is not for lack of effort on our part but for lack of opportunity.  It's been much more difficult for a family to live on one income since we've been adults than when we were kids.  We've had the rug pulled out from under us throughout our lives.  People 5-10 years older than the oldest boomers have had it much better than we have.  We accepted that we just were born at a bad time but it is very annoying, having worked hard all our lives, raised our kids the best we could, taken care of our elderly parents, etc., to be told that we are selfish and we caused problems that we had nothing to do with.  If you think that, you don't know jack.










Reply
#36
With Modernism and the VII destruction I don't think it mattered much who had a good "Catholic" education and who didn't, who worked too much, who was too poor, who didn't have a rich, stable parish. None of that made a difference, IMO. Really it was parents selling out their kids, whether they meant to or not. The way I see it, it was only when we started thinking no one but "experts" could teach our children (not as a helper to the parents, but in place of the parents) that it was really easy for the modernists to move in and plant all the bombs they wanted to. During the early to mid 20th Century, so many parents were beginning to feel incapable of teaching their children (both because that new theory was just so thick in the milieu, and because just as many were glad of it, it gave them more time for me, me, me). Anyone on this board who home schools has heard it before--"You teach your children yourself? Don't you need a certificate for that or something?"  ::) And like Penelope said, critical thinking and classical learning went out the window at the same time...Modernists aren't only in the Church, in the secular world we call them "Progressives." It's not a coincidence that the rise in "Progressives" and "Modernists" follow almost the same timeline...once they get a hold of our kids, they go for broke.
Reply
#37
Things moved rapidly after the Council. It really got going with the changes of pope Paul VI to the Mass in 1965. I was 17 yrs old. I had been taught in a Catholic grammar school the same way that my parents were, we even used some of the same books.

When it changed I was considered by the younger boomers as an anachronism. I was formal, I was always worried about sin, I was uptight, I was shunned, because I wasn't a hip I dig it kind of guy. What gets me crazy is when folks take pot shots at us and have no idea what it was like in 1965. It wasn't just like now but in the past. Long hair was just a fashion it didn't change your mind.

If you, like me grew up in your youngest years without TV, because it was in it's infancy, you'd be able to see these differences. This all came in a crush to me and the older boomers and the lost generation. Too much input.

I'm still bewildered, and the latest changes I just ignore, as I can not assimilate these changes in real time, anymore. I'll leave it to the real historians, if there are any left in fifty years.
Reply
#38
(01-03-2011, 12:01 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(01-02-2011, 10:59 PM)cunctas_haereses Wrote: It's NOT the boomers, good grief.

It's 'the greatest generation' that was asleep at the wheel - they were the ADULTS then.

Boomers were children. I was 9 in '65 when that hideous council closed.

I was 13 when the Novus Ordo was jammed down our necks in record time.

You can't hang this on the boomers, sorry.   

Literacy, it's useful.

What I said:
Who else to blame for these problems?  Why are the churches not filled like they were before? 

This, I think, is an actual critique, and I did, to be fair, toss in the parents of the Boomers, as well.

You are welcome to pound sand, twerp.
Reply
#39
Verenaerin, I have a question for you, or really, for your mom. Or anyone who knows. These days, parish priests are transferred from parish to parish within a diocese every six years or so. Was that the case back in "the day," before VII or even in the first few years after VII? When did the notion of transferring priests so frequently come about?

I ask because I think it may impact the continuity of parishioners' ongoing education (formal, as in children's CCD classes, or even just topics for sermons, etc.). We had a really great pastor at my parish for six years who was slowly making changes that were bringing people back to Mass, the parish school seemed to be getting stronger, etc., etc. But just as he was becoming most effective, they transferred him to another parish and gave us a priest who, in less than six months, undid everything the old pastor had worked so hard to accomplish. I imagine that a similar scenario could also influence how strictly or loosely a parish conforms to true Church teaching, what kind of education the children of the parish are getting, and so on. So I'm wondering if this was much of an issue before VII, or if it's one of those things that happened after the Council.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)