Social upheaval before V2
#31
...srsly? You would rather children go without CCD if a man won't get off his rear end and teach?
Reply
#32
(09-07-2011, 10:39 PM)knittycat Wrote: ...srsly? You would rather children go without CCD if a man won't get off his rear end and teach?

Where CCD is concerned, no CCD is better than bad CCD.

Yes, I'm being sexist.
Reply
#33
(09-07-2011, 10:39 PM)knittycat Wrote: ...srsly? You would rather children go without CCD if a man won't get off his rear end and teach?

I told you he was a bit nutty on this. 

Something I wonder is how long has the feminization of the church been going on.  I know this has been a big problem Protestants have been struggling with since 17th century when most Calvinistic chruch members were women (to be a church member you had to have experienced sanctification which assured you were part of the elect). 
Reply
#34
Well, at least you're upfront about it.
Reply
#35
(09-07-2011, 10:42 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(09-07-2011, 10:39 PM)knittycat Wrote: ...srsly? You would rather children go without CCD if a man won't get off his rear end and teach?

I told you he was a bit nutty on this. 
LOL
Reply
#36
(09-07-2011, 10:43 PM)knittycat Wrote: Well, at least you're upfront about it.

HK likes to claim he is the face of sexism for a new generation :-p
Reply
#37
The Shrubber makes a good point:
(09-07-2011, 07:34 PM)Roger the Shrubber Wrote: Many parish churches built in the early 60s were built with the New Order of the Mass in mind.  They were going to change things whether approved by the council or not.

I came across this, from a speech of Fr. Gommar de Pauw made in 1967. He's talking about how the Church in America had just become de facto schismatic:
Quote:When he was told, for instance, that the first attack of the Modernists would be against the traditional Latin liturgy, Pope John XXIII,
who took responsibility when there was need for it, convoked all the Cardinals living in Rome and all those within reasonable traveling
distance, and ordered them to come to Rome on February 22nd of 1962 – eight months before the opening of the Vatican Council. And most
solemnly, personally leaving the Vatican to go and stand on top of the grave of St. Peter in Rome with all the Cardinals standing next to
him and a score of bishops right underneath him, Pope John, in the form of an apostolic constitution, which is the highest form of papal
intervention next to an infallible dogmatic definition, declared that there was nothing – no council or no bishop – that could touch the
traditional Latin liturgy. He came out and on February 22nd, the Feast of St. Peter’s Chair (he selected just for that) with the
constitution “Veterum Sapientia,” made it clear that this wasn’t just a quick talk from the pope.

“In the full awareness of Our office and of Our authority, We decree and order ad Perpetuam Rei memoriam – in perpetuity,” he said. “We
will and command that this Our constitution remain firmly established and ratified notwithstanding anything to the contrary…” And that
constitution said that Latin had to stay in the liturgy and that the bishops had the obligation to see to it that no one under their
authority works for the elimination of the Latin from either the liturgy or the studies for the priesthood in our seminaries. That was 8
months before the Vatican Council opened. And the Pope made it clear that this was ad Perpetuam Rei memoriam “for all perpetuity, this
must remain in the fullness of Our authority We make this decision,” he said. And he made it quite clear why: “A universal religion needs
a universal language.”

And it was in that year, 1962, that a schismatic heretical, Conciliar sect of the Church in the United States of America was born. Why?
Because regardless of the clear, solemn oath of Pope John XXIII, the majority of our American bishops refused to obey. I should know
because I was there on the faculty at the time. And I had instructions from our Bishop in Baltimore NOT to implement the constitution
from Rome. That’s when I resigned.

And it is that day that the majority of our bishops automatically excommunicated themselves from our Roman Catholic Church! Now they try
to threaten me with excommunication. I would consider it a high honor to be illegally excommunicated by men who were excommunicated 5
years ago. Why? Because the instruction they sent out to people such as I was: “Pay no attention to that old…” – I won’t quote what they
called good, old Pope John. “Pay no attention. We will wait until the council convenes and we will get rid of that Latin liturgy fast. So
just wait.”

Now, ladies and gentlemen, we are still living in a Church that believes in its Code of Canon Law. And, if you believe Pope Paul VI, and
we still do, than Canon 2,332 of our Code of Canon Law makes it so clear.

“Each and everyone, of whatsoever position or rank, whether king, bishop or cardinal, who appeals from the laws, decrees or mandates of
the reigning Roman pontiff to an ecumenical council is suspected of heresy and incurs automatic excommunication.” And the following
Canon: “Persons who directly or indirectly prevent the implementation of acts issued by the Apostolic See incur automatic
excommunication.” – Canon 2,333. And you don’t have to be a Doctor of Canon Law to understand that language.

1962 was the first step in the establishment of the schismatic, heretical, Conciliar sect which is now posing as the Catholic Church
establishment in the United States. Because now we are faced with Conciliarism. Pope John XXIII convoked his Vatican Council – and ladies
and gentlemen, let no one tell you that I personally, or the Traditional Catholic movement, are fighting the decisions of the Ecumenical
Council. Oh no, we are not! No Catholic could! What we are fighting today are the false interpretations of the Second Vatican Council and
it is high time for the present Holy Father to declare that the Vatican Council was BIG MISTAKE, and that it is now completely eradicated
from the record. He could do it! He is the pope! And it isn’t just to the credit of Pope John XXIII, because it is much more to the
credit of the Holy Ghost, that John XXIII made it crystal clear from the very beginning when he convoked that council. And I should know;
I heard him say it! Yes, he said it in Latin, but I still understand a little Latin. He made it clear that, unlike all previous
Ecumenical Councils, the Second Vatican Council was to be, not a Doctrinal Council, but a pastoral one, leaving the door open for any
subsequent pope to just say “BASTA!!”

The bishops in Germany, Holland, France, and the United States had been preparing the revolution since the 30's, taking up the banner of the Modernists that Pope Pius X had condemned in the first decades of the 20th century. Pius XII kept condemning them in the 40s and 50s, but they were strong enough in the 60's to hijack the council. And then, of course, finally, Paul VI was their man.
Reply
#38
I agree with HK (I like my head joined to my shoulders thank you very much!).
Reply
#39
(09-07-2011, 10:06 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: Scip,

When Bush was asked who favorite philosopher was he said Jesus Christ. He many times said his faith was more important than anything else in his life. Jimmy Cater said the same as well.

And there is an important book called the Separation of Church and State by someone named Hamburg I think. It discusses how anti-Catholicism was key in creating the Catholic school system and also the modern notion of separation of church and state. This is a book published by Harvard University Press not by some crazed trad publishing house.


The kill to your response id your own response....Bush did not say..."I'm a Methodist first....then an American...."


And I'm damn sure Jimmy didn't either....if he did he was an anomaly...


As for anti-Catholic public schools...well that won't really cut it.  Some of the impetus to create a larger system stemmed from escaping the dominant culture...prot...but that does not mean anti-Catholic...it just means Catholics...being a minority...were not going to determine the public religious order...taught in school, and that religious edu would then have to be at home or done in a parochial setting...which schools had existed...fewer in number...since at least Seton...

The real problem was not this or that teaching in publik schools....but   since such schools would be centered on teach things that were unacceptable to reasonable members of the citizenry...they should have deemed unconstitutional...see...this is another example of the fed over reaching...

the const is designed so that people will not be paying for things which are morally repugnant to them...and it is impossible for a single public school system to address so many interests..


yet another reason vouchers are a decent answer to the problem of education....not just for "bad" school districts but all school districts...

it address the idea that as a society we have a certain interest in getting all kids up to a certain level...while taking into account the various sensibilities of all parties involved....and notice the reliance on a deep seated Christian tolerance to make this work....no majority of holier-than-thou candylanders could ever make that work...since they are so intolerant and determined they are right...they'd want to force their notions on all schools...seriously



did anti-Catholicism play a part in the building of public schools...sure...because people vote...and some of them were anti-catholic....some of them were anti-black...so that worked it's way in too...need I go on....but let's look at the Catholic thing real fast...

Reading this forum...with all the geniuses talking about how we should give up our God given right and subjugate ourselves to a "king"....who would not be anti-Catholic....shit....that crap makes me anti-Catholic...so much so that I have to warn people about it in conversation...that there are kooks that still buy that shit.


Reply
#40
(09-08-2011, 09:17 AM)Scipio_a Wrote:
(09-07-2011, 10:06 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: Scip,

When Bush was asked who favorite philosopher was he said Jesus Christ. He many times said his faith was more important than anything else in his life. Jimmy Cater said the same as well.

And there is an important book called the Separation of Church and State by someone named Hamburg I think. It discusses how anti-Catholicism was key in creating the Catholic school system and also the modern notion of separation of church and state. This is a book published by Harvard University Press not by some crazed trad publishing house.


The kill to your response id your own response....Bush did not say..."I'm a Methodist first....then an American...."


And I'm damn sure Jimmy didn't either....if he did he was an anomaly...


As for anti-Catholic public schools...well that won't really cut it.  Some of the impetus to create a larger system stemmed from escaping the dominant culture...prot...but that does not mean anti-Catholic...it just means Catholics...being a minority...were not going to determine the public religious order...taught in school, and that religious edu would then have to be at home or done in a parochial setting...which schools had existed...fewer in number...since at least Seton...

The real problem was not this or that teaching in publik schools....but   since such schools would be centered on teach things that were unacceptable to reasonable members of the citizenry...they should have deemed unconstitutional...see...this is another example of the fed over reaching...

the const is designed so that people will not be paying for things which are morally repugnant to them...and it is impossible for a single public school system to address so many interests..


yet another reason vouchers are a decent answer to the problem of education....not just for "bad" school districts but all school districts...

it address the idea that as a society we have a certain interest in getting all kids up to a certain level...while taking into account the various sensibilities of all parties involved....and notice the reliance on a deep seated Christian tolerance to make this work....no majority of holier-than-thou candylanders could ever make that work...since they are so intolerant and determined they are right...they'd want to force their notions on all schools...seriously



did anti-Catholicism play a part in the building of public schools...sure...because people vote...and some of them were anti-catholic....some of them were anti-black...so that worked it's way in too...need I go on....but let's look at the Catholic thing real fast...

Reading this forum...with all the geniuses talking about how we should give up our God given right and subjugate ourselves to a "king"....who would not be anti-Catholic....shit....that crap makes me anti-Catholic...so much so that I have to warn people about it in conversation...that there are kooks that still buy that shit.

Bush and Carter almost always referred to themselves as Christians not Methodists or Baptists.  The problem is it's difficult for a Catholic to pull of that same stunt since many Protestants don't consider Catholics to be Christians.  Maybe people are more scared of you than me, but I have been told many times that I am not actually a Christian.   If JFK had tried to describe himself as a Christian in 1960 people would have laughed at him.  In contrast, both Humbert Humphrey and Richard Nixon (Kennedy's opponents) specifically stressed how Christian they were.  Most people didn't even know Nixon was a Quaker. 

Even today Catholic politicians would have trouble I think if they try to define themselves as a Christian.  Especially, as the press never lets people forget who is Catholic.  Ricky Perry's faith is often mentioned stories, but he's invariably referred to as a Christian.  Rick Santorum has gotten less coverage since he is more of a long shot, but I would bet you there are no stories on him out there that refer to him as a Christian.  Santorum can't be a Christian since he's Catholic.  Look at last night's debate.  The only candidate that was specifically asked about his faith was Rick Santorum, and the question specifically dealt with the teachings of the Catholic Church.  Catholic politicians get these questions all the time.  When was the last time you saw someone ask Ron Paul what he thinks about baptist teachings or Rick Perry what he thinks of the Methodist faith.  Even Michelle Bachmann with her controversial church has gets less questions about her faith than Santorum.  Santorum's question began with the phrase "You're a Catholic..."  Could you imagine someone starting off a debate question to Joe Lieberman with "You're a Jew..."  Someone once wrote that anti-Catholicism is the antisemitism of the intellectual.  Might be some truth there.  You might say many Protestant politicians don't make a big of a deal about their faith as Santorum, but even Catholic politicians that avoid talking about their faith like the plague still get these kinds of questions.   

Barak Obama got a lot of flack for his pastor, but his pastor was a certifiable nutter.  And, Obama survived.  You think he would have survived if he was a conservative Catholic and his SSPX pastor was as certifiable a nutter as Jeremiah Wright? Obama's pastor had preached that the FBI had invented AIDS so as to wipe out the blacks in America.  What's the trad equivalent of that? 

The other reason Catholic politicians always get labeled as such, is because that information is important.  Doesn't matter if a politician is Methodist, Baptist, Episcopalian, United Church of Christ, Unitarian, or Quakers.  Reporters don't need to mention this information as these religions are mainstream.  Catholicism isn't seen as such so reporters mention it as this is important. Mormon politicians get the same treatment to a lesser degree.  Catholic politicians who flaunt the faith are portrayed as progressives, while those that don't are seen as trilobites.  You could say the press doesn't like religion that much, but when was the last time you have seen a news story talking about a Protetsant politician disagreeing with one of his sect's principles? Last I can remember was when Carter announced he was leaving the Southern Baptists because he thought they had become sexist, and that must have been more than 15 years ago. 

And so far all these Catholic politicians attend the Novus Ordo. How do you think people will react if trads become the mainstream of the Church?

The other thing to keep in mind is that mainline Protestantism is dying off in this country, and evangelical Protestants are growing.  Mainline Protestants love singing kumbaya with people who attend the Novus Ordo. Evangelicals not so much.  So we might be heading toward a situation where Catholics become more traditional...and Protestants become more...Protestant.  I doubt a religious war will start up anytime soon, but if tradition grows there will be much more friction. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)