I enjoy reading stories about how Catholics transitioned during the first few years after Vatican II
For historical posterity, they represent valuable insight on who/what/why/how things were done in Catholic worship and in Catholic everyday life.
Msgr. Charles Pope provides an interesting article when he asks one priest why did so many Catholics tried to change the Church during the sixties and seventies.
Thoughts?
http://blog.adw.org/2014/02/why-did-so-many-seek-to-revolutionize-the-church-in-the-60s-and-70s/ (http://blog.adw.org/2014/02/why-did-so-many-seek-to-revolutionize-the-church-in-the-60s-and-70s/)
QuoteRegarding architecture, remember that Art Deco and other streamlined forms were very popular in the 50s. The phrase, "sleek and modern" comes to mind. Straight lines, and functional design were all the rage. But our churches pointed back to flourishes and excesses of what many people considered "myths" of a previous time. Why should we keep running to St. Blase to bless throats when modern medicine had more to offer? Did priests really have more to offer us by way of counsel than Sigmund Freud in other modern psychotherapist? Who needs exorcism when you have psychotherapy? Was not our time mumbling on beads better spent with social action?
I never thought of it as Art Deco. I always thought of it as Bauhuas.
I just read up to the recreation of what the old priest said. This is pathetic. They thought they were doing good. Well maybe they did. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions and they should have realized that Christ's Church never goes out of style.
Obviously, at best, these were men who did not understand the Faith. Because innovations in society and technology made them give it up.
That's my take.
I wonder if the old priest came to regret what he, and others like him, did? It sounded like this post was trying to absolve him on some level...I'm sorry, but their good intentions don't change the fact that they've given us a disaster. If nothing else it confirmed what most of us suspected: Vatican II revolutionaries were motivated by a loss of the Faith and a love for the world.
And perhaps I missed it, but the old priest didn't apologize for it at all.
QuoteFor most of us, changes like these couldn't come fast enough. How could we appeal to the new young college "jet set," those were going to school in the G.I. Bill, how could we ever appeal to a young intellectual crowd while running old-fashioned peasant churches, reciting old myths, novenas, legends of the Saints, and catechetical formulas?
Gee, I don't know. Maybe you could have studied Father Feeney's success at Bow and Arrow Streets right down the street from Harvard University.
But, no, you're kind chose to pulverize him.
Quote from: Innocent Smith on February 24, 2014, 10:30:56 AM
QuoteFor most of us, changes like these couldn't come fast enough. How could we appeal to the new young college "jet set," those were going to school in the G.I. Bill, how could we ever appeal to a young intellectual crowd while running old-fashioned peasant churches, reciting old myths, novenas, legends of the Saints, and catechetical formulas?
Gee, I don't know. Maybe you could have studied Father Feeney's success at Bow and Arrow Streets right down the street from Harvard University.
But, no, you're kind chose to pulverize him.
But he was anti-Semitic... ::)
Quote from: Innocent Smith on February 24, 2014, 10:04:57 AM
I never thought of it as Art Deco. I always thought of it as Bauhuas.
Took the words right out of my mouth! That was precisely what I was going to say.
Please, Father. NOT Art Deco. Art Deco was elegant. "New Church" was Bauhaus.QuoteObviously, at best, these were men who did not understand the Faith. Because innovations in society and technology made them give it up.
As I was reading, I.S., what went through my mind was weakness of understanding on the part of such wannable modernists. The 1960's was not the first time the world "changed." Many decades and eras before that, technology and society marched on, but the Church, which has always represented a different realm than science and technology -- a timeless realm --remained distinct from the "need" for progress.
From the article:
QuoteEven today, far too many in the Church who want to go on making the mistake described above by the older priest friend who spoke to me. How desperately they want the Church to adapt to the modern age, by discarding the received doctrine, tradition and wisdom of God. Too many would have us reflect the modern age, more than Christ. In order to be "welcoming" modern and sophisticated, they want the Church to succumb to worldly demands that we cave on many issues related to marriage, sexuality, life issues, and Church authority and governance. We cannot survive, they say, unless we make these sorts of changes.
Similar kind of "welcoming" talk can be heard from the Holy See. Hmmmm.
QuoteBut really, have we not learned at this point that seeking a reproachment with the world only ends in the further erosion of the church and the ultimate impoverishment of the world. Our modern world is in a mess, and in darkness, because we have failed to be what we are supposed to be, a light in the midst of darkness, and the sign is often contradicted.
And to me,
that is the Crisis in the Church: that not only does 78% of the laity not understand this, but also too many in the clergy, the hierarchy, and the Pontiff himself fail to understand. The Church which Jesus Christ founded will remain in darkness until those distinctions are understood and affirmed.
QuoteIt is not the job of the Church to be popular, to reflect the thoughts of the times, or to parrot worldly "wisdom." It is the job of the Church to reflect the views her founder and head Jesus Christ, who speaks in the Scriptures and sacred Tradition he handed down to us. Is not our job to be appealing, or even numerous. It is our work to proclaim that which is been received, whether in season or out of season.... Those who come to God's house do not simply need another voice to parrot the same thing they hear from the news anchors and the talking heads or the intellectuals of the University.
Quote from: Pheo on February 24, 2014, 10:17:21 AM
I wonder if the old priest came to regret what he, and others like him, did? It sounded like this post was trying to absolve him on some level...I'm sorry, but their good intentions don't change the fact that they've given us a disaster. If nothing else it confirmed what most of us suspected: Vatican II revolutionaries were motivated by a loss of the Faith and a love for the world.
I agree.
Quote from: Petrie on February 24, 2014, 10:30:42 AM
And perhaps I missed it, but the old priest didn't apologize for it at all.
I noticed that, too.
I think the priest implicitly exposes the problems in the Church right before the Council - 50's-ism if you will. Now, to be clear, there is nothing wrong with the faith including immigrant peasant women kneeling before statues with a Rosary, and the way the priest portrays her is sickening to me; but if so many people - especially so many priests - can so easily buy into this thinking that they stream into action when John XXIII declares "Aggiornamento!"
Also, the priest is quite right when he says that they could have turned to the Catholic intellectual tradition to deal with these "problems," rather than modern science, Freud, and the like. However, what someone like him either is unaware of, or refuses to admit, is that it did not just happen that way by accident - it was an engineered and perpetrated crime done with intention by its enactors. That is why everything changed, rather than it being simply a big innocent mistake, as the priest would have us believe.
Also, it is notable to me that Msgr. Pope is allowed to write these things without being censored, as it is an Arch. DC blog. Also, reading things like this appended with b/s caveats about "I do not advocate a wholesale return to an all-Latin liturgy" or "not everything in the 60's and 70's was bad" makes me want to
:vomit:
However, what someone like him either is unaware of, or refuses to admit, is that it did not just happen that way by accident - it was an engineered and perpetrated crime done with intention by its enactors. That is why everything changed, rather than it being simply a big innocent mistake, as the priest would have us believe.
Yes! And that is why the original post by Msgr. Pope sickens me. When will the hierarchy with spines speak up. I'm tired of this spineless crap.
Quote from: VeraeFidei on February 24, 2014, 10:45:35 AM
I think the priest implicitly exposes the problems in the Church right before the Council - 50's-ism if you will. Now, to be clear, there is nothing wrong with the faith including immigrant peasant women kneeling before statues with a Rosary, and the way the priest portrays her is sickening to me; but if so many people - especially so many priests - can so easily buy into this thinking that they stream into action when John XXIII declares "Aggiornamento!"
Yep. Also true
QuoteAlso, the priest is quite right when he says that they could have turned to the Catholic intellectual tradition to deal with these "problems," rather than modern science, Freud, and the like. However, what someone like him either is unaware of, or refuses to admit, is that it did not just happen that way by accident - it was an engineered and perpetrated crime done with intention by its enactors. That is why everything changed, rather than it being simply a big innocent mistake, as the priest would have us believe.
This too. And they will be asked to answer for that some day.
Quote from: Miriam_M on February 24, 2014, 11:11:37 AM
Quote from: VeraeFidei on February 24, 2014, 10:45:35 AM
I think the priest implicitly exposes the problems in the Church right before the Council - 50's-ism if you will. Now, to be clear, there is nothing wrong with the faith including immigrant peasant women kneeling before statues with a Rosary, and the way the priest portrays her is sickening to me; but if so many people - especially so many priests - can so easily buy into this thinking that they stream into action when John XXIII declares "Aggiornamento!"
Yep. Also true
QuoteAlso, the priest is quite right when he says that they could have turned to the Catholic intellectual tradition to deal with these "problems," rather than modern science, Freud, and the like. However, what someone like him either is unaware of, or refuses to admit, is that it did not just happen that way by accident - it was an engineered and perpetrated crime done with intention by its enactors. That is why everything changed, rather than it being simply a big innocent mistake, as the priest would have us believe.
This too. And they will be asked to answer for that some day.
Yes. Many of them already have.
There is this implicit notion among trad-leaning neo-Catholics and many self-described trads that the Crisis just sort of...happened. As if things only happen to us, but nobody does them. I am reminded of a professor in college who would rant and rant about not using passive verbs - verbs are actions; SOMEONE DOES THE ACTION!
In other words, someone(s) cause the Crisis.
Quote from: Pheo on February 24, 2014, 10:17:21 AM
I wonder if the old priest came to regret what he, and others like him, did? It sounded like this post was trying to absolve him on some level...I'm sorry, but their good intentions don't change the fact that they've given us a disaster. If nothing else it confirmed what most of us suspected: Vatican II revolutionaries were motivated by a loss of the Faith and a love for the world.
Charity demands that we recognize that people who have acted wrongly nevertheless had good motives. We are to ascribe good intent to people as much as is possible. I appreciate how the blog post helps me to carry out this duty. I suspect this was part of the author's reason for writing it.
I agree that their good intentions do not take away from the disastrous results. I saw nothing to suggest that the author believes otherwise. We do not speak of their good intentions because it affects the results but for the sake of our souls. To constantly ascribe malice to others makes us into bitter, angry and unforgiving people. That is not the sort of people that God calls us to be.
I was there and I tell you that no one lifted a finger to stop the insanity. No. one. It began immediately and didn't let up for years and years and years.
Good motives? Maybe a handful. The majority knew exactly what they were doing. They were well organized and their methods were ruthless. They took over in no time at all everything under the sun in the Church and ruled with an iron fist.
Those of us who were there remember and I for one will not allow anyone to rewrite the history of the aftermath of Vatican II to suit their purposes as long as I am alive.
Which is why today a sardonic smile graces my face whenever I hear talk of love and tolerance and compassion and evangelizing (I have grown to dislike that word) our "separated brethren". Where was the love and tolerance and compassion for the broken hearts and utter confusion of Catholics in the sixties? And seventies? And well into the eighties?
No one even took the time or made the effort to explain anything to us. "This is the way it's going to be and this is the way it is and that's that. If you don't like it, there's the door and don't let it hit you on the way out!"
Don't get me started. I have, as you can tell, never recovered from it.
Quote from: Dominica on February 24, 2014, 12:37:03 PM
Which is why today a sardonic smile graces my face whenever I hear talk of love and tolerance and compassion and evangelizing (I have grown to dislike that word) our "separated brethren". Where was the love and tolerance and compassion for the broken hearts and utter confusion of Catholics in the sixties? And seventies? And well into the eighties?
No one even took the time or made the effort to explain anything to us. "This is the way it's going to be and this is the way it is and that's that. If you don't like it, there's the door and don't let it hit you on the way out!"
Don't get me started. I have, as you can tell, never recovered from it.
Because these people were the enemy. They stood against progress and modernism, everything good. They were backwards in their faith journey and they were dangerous (well, they were inconvenient, anyway) but the separated brethren were further along in their faith journey and should be courted and admired because they had already correctly called these rubes into question and rejected them. The new churchmen were running to catch up with them. Why? Because they were protestant themselves.
It's the same today. Kenneth Copeland? Friend. Father Manelli? Enemy. Dangerous prisoner.
Quote from: Pheo on February 24, 2014, 10:17:21 AM
I wonder if the old priest came to regret what he, and others like him, did? It sounded like this post was trying to absolve him on some level...I'm sorry, but their good intentions don't change the fact that they've given us a disaster. If nothing else it confirmed what most of us suspected: Vatican II revolutionaries were motivated by a loss of the Faith and a love for the world.
From the article:
One day I asked an older priest why so much had been discarded by the priests of his time. I thought I'd get a straight answer from him, because he had been one of those priest who reveled in all things new, and come to regret that many wonderful things of been discarded and lost.
I paraphrase the answer he gave in the first person. May he rest in peace; he died some years ago. But I remember his words well and he said something like this:
Quote from: VeraeFidei on February 24, 2014, 10:45:35 AM
However, what someone like him either is unaware of, or refuses to admit, is that it did not just happen that way by accident - it was an engineered and perpetrated crime done with intention by its enactors. That is why everything changed, rather than it being simply a big innocent mistake, as the priest would have us believe.
Both of these things can be true. It can be an engineered plan on the part of some and an honest attempt to do the right thing on the part of others. There is a reason that the term "useful idiots" was invented and used by the likes of Lenin, Marx, Alinsky, etc. Its also possible, and indeed quite probable that while some are completely aware that they are knee deep in the heresy of modernism, others have no idea and honestly believe they are doing what is right.
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 12:22:35 PM
We are to ascribe good intent to people as much as is possible.
That's fine, but he told us his motives: he was trying to please Man, even if it meant ignoring the Faith handed directly to us by God. I refuse to aknowledge any aspect of this motive as 'good.'
Quote from: Parresia on February 24, 2014, 12:54:23 PM
From the article:
One day I asked an older priest why so much had been discarded by the priests of his time. I thought I'd get a straight answer from him, because he had been one of those priest who reveled in all things new, and come to regret that many wonderful things of been discarded and lost.
Thanks for that.
Quote from: Pheo on February 24, 2014, 01:00:14 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 12:22:35 PM
We are to ascribe good intent to people as much as is possible.
That's fine, but he told us his motives: he was trying to please Man, even if it meant ignoring the Faith handed directly to us by God. I refuse to aknowledge any aspect of this motive as 'good.'
Quote from: Parresia on February 24, 2014, 12:54:23 PM
From the article:
One day I asked an older priest why so much had been discarded by the priests of his time. I thought I'd get a straight answer from him, because he had been one of those priest who reveled in all things new, and come to regret that many wonderful things of been discarded and lost.
Thanks for that.
Cheers.
Quote from: Dominica on February 24, 2014, 12:32:01 PM
Those of us who were there remember and I for one will not allow anyone to rewrite the history of the aftermath of Vatican II to suit their purposes as long as I am alive.
History deals with people's words and actions, not their motives. It is difficult to determine people's motives, even of people living at the same time as us. I do not question that you remember very distressing events, but it seems unlikely that you had the ability to read people's minds and hearts.
Quote from: Pheo on February 24, 2014, 01:00:14 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 12:22:35 PM
We are to ascribe good intent to people as much as is possible.
That's fine, but he told us his motives: he was trying to please Man, even if it meant ignoring the Faith handed directly to us by God. I refuse to aknowledge any aspect of this motive as 'good.'
He did not say that. I just reread the passage and I cannot even see what you are paraphrasing to come up with that.
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 01:11:27 PM
He did not say that. I just reread the passage and I cannot even see what you are paraphrasing to come up with that.
He did. Multiple times.
E.g.:
QuoteBut our churches pointed back to flourishes and excesses of what many people considered ?myths? of a previous time. Why should we keep running to St. Blase to bless throats when modern medicine had more to offer? Did priests really have more to offer us by way of counsel than Sigmund Freud in other modern psychotherapist? Who needs exorcism when you have psychotherapy? Was not our time mumbling on beads better spent with social action?
Yes, we were desperately afraid that the Church was frozen in time, while the modern age was moving forward in light-speed.
And so they caved...to please Man.
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 01:07:28 PM
Quote from: Dominica on February 24, 2014, 12:32:01 PM
Those of us who were there remember and I for one will not allow anyone to rewrite the history of the aftermath of Vatican II to suit their purposes as long as I am alive.
History deals with people's words and actions, not their motives. It is difficult to determine people's motives, even of people living at the same time as us. I do not question that you remember very distressing events, but it seems unlikely that you had the ability to read people's minds and hearts.
Neither do you. Have the ability to read people's hearts and minds. You don't know any more than I do. I have the advantage of having been a Catholic at the time and there. You weren't.
Quote from: Dominica on February 24, 2014, 01:15:11 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 01:07:28 PM
Quote from: Dominica on February 24, 2014, 12:32:01 PM
Those of us who were there remember and I for one will not allow anyone to rewrite the history of the aftermath of Vatican II to suit their purposes as long as I am alive.
History deals with people's words and actions, not their motives. It is difficult to determine people's motives, even of people living at the same time as us. I do not question that you remember very distressing events, but it seems unlikely that you had the ability to read people's minds and hearts.
Neither do you. Have the ability to read people's hearts and minds. You don't know any more than I do. I have the advantage of having been a Catholic at the time and there. You weren't.
I do not need to know. I have the teachings of Saints who have told us to ascribe good motives to others.
Quote from: Pheo on February 24, 2014, 01:12:47 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 01:11:27 PM
He did not say that. I just reread the passage and I cannot even see what you are paraphrasing to come up with that.
He did. Multiple times.
E.g.:
QuoteBut our churches pointed back to flourishes and excesses of what many people considered "myths" of a previous time. Why should we keep running to St. Blase to bless throats when modern medicine had more to offer? Did priests really have more to offer us by way of counsel than Sigmund Freud in other modern psychotherapist? Who needs exorcism when you have psychotherapy? Was not our time mumbling on beads better spent with social action?
Yes, we were desperately afraid that the Church was frozen in time, while the modern age was moving forward in light-speed.
And so they caved...to please Man.
Agreed. He speaks on "their" motivations for doing what they did throughout the quotation provided by Msgr. Pope. I still believe it possible that he and his fellow priests thought they were doing the right thing, while others had more sinister intent, and for both of those to be true at the same time. As I noted above, many modernists probably have no idea that their beliefs are steeped in heresy.
Quote from: Pheo on February 24, 2014, 01:12:47 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 01:11:27 PM
He did not say that. I just reread the passage and I cannot even see what you are paraphrasing to come up with that.
He did. Multiple times.
E.g.:
QuoteBut our churches pointed back to flourishes and excesses of what many people considered "myths" of a previous time. Why should we keep running to St. Blase to bless throats when modern medicine had more to offer? Did priests really have more to offer us by way of counsel than Sigmund Freud in other modern psychotherapist? Who needs exorcism when you have psychotherapy? Was not our time mumbling on beads better spent with social action?
Yes, we were desperately afraid that the Church was frozen in time, while the modern age was moving forward in light-speed.
And so they caved...to please Man.
They did not see what they were doing as trying to please Man. They thought they were bringing the Faith to modern Man. It is obvious to us that they were wrong, but we have the benefit of hindsight. Haven't you ever done something that seemed right at the time, but later you realized that you had been wrong and foolish?
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 01:24:36 PM
Quote from: Dominica on February 24, 2014, 01:15:11 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 01:07:28 PM
Quote from: Dominica on February 24, 2014, 12:32:01 PM
Those of us who were there remember and I for one will not allow anyone to rewrite the history of the aftermath of Vatican II to suit their purposes as long as I am alive.
History deals with people's words and actions, not their motives. It is difficult to determine people's motives, even of people living at the same time as us. I do not question that you remember very distressing events, but it seems unlikely that you had the ability to read people's minds and hearts.
Neither do you. Have the ability to read people's hearts and minds. You don't know any more than I do. I have the advantage of having been a Catholic at the time and there. You weren't.
I do not need to know. I have the teachings of Saints who have told us to ascribe good motives to others.
Good for you!
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 12:22:35 PM
Charity demands that we recognize that people who have acted wrongly nevertheless had good motives.
Overused but true, that the road to Hell is paved with "Good Intentions." These were the keepers of the Faith, the ones
uniquely entrusted to preserve it, protect it and disseminate it. Their primary responsibility -- j
ust like that of the current Pontiff - was and is to baptized Catholics, not to the World, Jayne, not to the feelings of non-Catholics, not to the feelings of atheists, not to the feelings of dissenters in the ranks of clergy and laity. Instead they exchanged contemporary trendiness for courage and fidelity. Many of them were actually educated in pre-V2 absolute truths and thus knew better. "The Spirit of V2" was not their only knowledge base for Catholicism.
This is why I do excuse, and in fact sympathize with, more recently "catechized" Catholics, most of whom actually have an extremely thin, and often outright inaccurate, understanding of the Faith, but through no fault of their own. A pastor near me is 72. He was well educated in traditional Catholicism but has chosen to reject every aspect of Catholic teaching prior to V2, and everything after V2 which is associated in the slightest with Restoration. I do not give priests like him a pass.
Quote from: Miriam_M on February 24, 2014, 01:34:37 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 12:22:35 PM
Charity demands that we recognize that people who have acted wrongly nevertheless had good motives.
Overused but true, that the road to Hell is paved with "Good Intentions." These were the keepers of the Faith, the ones uniquely entrusted to preserve it, protect it and disseminate it. Their primary responsibility -- just like that of the current Pontiff - was and is to baptized Catholics, not to the World, Jayne, not to the feelings of non-Catholics, not to the feelings of atheists, not to the feelings of dissenters in the ranks of clergy and laity. Instead they exchanged contemporary trendiness for courage and fidelity. Many of them were actually educated in pre-V2 absolute truths and thus knew better. "The Spirit of V2" was not their only knowledge base for Catholicism.
This is why I do excuse, and in fact sympathize with, more recently "catechized" Catholics, most of whom actually have an extremely thin, and often outright inaccurate, understanding of the Faith, but through no fault of their own. A pastor near me is 72. He was well educated in traditional Catholicism but has chosen to reject every aspect of Catholic teaching prior to V2, and everything after V2 which is associated in the slightest with Restoration. I do not give priests like him a pass.
It is not our job to judge people and decide who deserves Hell and who does not. We can look at people's words and determine whether they are sound Catholic teaching. We can look at their actions and determine if they are virtuous. But we do not judge souls.
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 01:38:36 PM
Quote from: Miriam_M on February 24, 2014, 01:34:37 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 12:22:35 PM
Charity demands that we recognize that people who have acted wrongly nevertheless had good motives.
Overused but true, that the road to Hell is paved with "Good Intentions." These were the keepers of the Faith, the ones uniquely entrusted to preserve it, protect it and disseminate it. Their primary responsibility -- just like that of the current Pontiff - was and is to baptized Catholics, not to the World, Jayne, not to the feelings of non-Catholics, not to the feelings of atheists, not to the feelings of dissenters in the ranks of clergy and laity. Instead they exchanged contemporary trendiness for courage and fidelity. Many of them were actually educated in pre-V2 absolute truths and thus knew better. "The Spirit of V2" was not their only knowledge base for Catholicism.
This is why I do excuse, and in fact sympathize with, more recently "catechized" Catholics, most of whom actually have an extremely thin, and often outright inaccurate, understanding of the Faith, but through no fault of their own. A pastor near me is 72. He was well educated in traditional Catholicism but has chosen to reject every aspect of Catholic teaching prior to V2, and everything after V2 which is associated in the slightest with Restoration. I do not give priests like him a pass.
It is not our job to judge people and decide who deserves Hell and who does not.
I did not say that, Jayne, and you know it. I am saying that "intentions" excuse none of us. They don't excuse clergy for being imprudent or cowardly. They don 't excuse you. They don't excuse me. Clergy were abundantly educated, as I mentioned. The vast majority of them who "went along" with the In-crowd had the intellectual, spiritual, and practical resources to resist doing so. You weren't there. Others of us were. Those who were witnessed the despicable abandonment of Sacred Tradition. Have a nice day.
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 01:32:04 PMThey did not see what they were doing as trying to please Man. They thought they were bringing the Faith to modern Man.
I'm not sure what part of my post you're objecting to anymore. I said that "their good intentions don't change the fact" of what happened. I don't really care what they
thought they were doing. On an objective level, they were throwing away gifts given to us by God in order to please Man. I never argued that they were all willing and enthusiastic agents of the diabolical.
From the horse's mouth we have an admission that relics of the past such as St Blaise and the Rosary were put away because they were thought to be outdated. Wow...
QuoteIt is obvious to us that they were wrong, but we have the benefit of hindsight. Haven't you ever done something that seemed right at the time, but later you realized that you had been wrong and foolish?
I'm sure I have. That wouldn't change how it could be described on an objective level.
Quote from: Miriam_M on February 24, 2014, 01:43:37 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 01:38:36 PM
Quote from: Miriam_M on February 24, 2014, 01:34:37 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 12:22:35 PM
Charity demands that we recognize that people who have acted wrongly nevertheless had good motives.
Overused but true, that the road to Hell is paved with "Good Intentions." These were the keepers of the Faith, the ones uniquely entrusted to preserve it, protect it and disseminate it. Their primary responsibility -- just like that of the current Pontiff - was and is to baptized Catholics, not to the World, Jayne, not to the feelings of non-Catholics, not to the feelings of atheists, not to the feelings of dissenters in the ranks of clergy and laity. Instead they exchanged contemporary trendiness for courage and fidelity. Many of them were actually educated in pre-V2 absolute truths and thus knew better. "The Spirit of V2" was not their only knowledge base for Catholicism.
This is why I do excuse, and in fact sympathize with, more recently "catechized" Catholics, most of whom actually have an extremely thin, and often outright inaccurate, understanding of the Faith, but through no fault of their own. A pastor near me is 72. He was well educated in traditional Catholicism but has chosen to reject every aspect of Catholic teaching prior to V2, and everything after V2 which is associated in the slightest with Restoration. I do not give priests like him a pass.
It is not our job to judge people and decide who deserves Hell and who does not.
I did not say that, Jayne, and you know it. I am saying that "intentions" excuse none of us. They don't excuse clergy for being imprudent or cowardly. They don 't excuse you. They don't excuse me. Clergy were abundantly educated, as I mentioned. The vast majority of them who "went along" with the In-crowd had the intellectual, spiritual, and practical resources to resist doing so. You weren't there. Others of us were. Those who were witnessed the despicable abandonment of Sacred Tradition. Have a nice day.
Actually, intention and understanding do affect culpability. Such factors can even determine whether a sin is mortal or venial. And God is the only one who knows this about a person. He will excuse or not, based on things that we cannot know. This is basic Catholic teaching and available to all Catholics, whether or not we saw the immediate aftermath of Vatican II.
The abandonment of Tradition was indeed despicable, but nobody, whether there or not, has a right to decide how culpable anyone was or who has an excuse.
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 01:32:04 PM
They thought they were bringing the Faith to modern Man.
And I object to this. They thought they were bringing Man back into the buildings (they failed in this, by the way), but there's no evidence that the Faith was their top priority. We have an admission that parts of the Faith were dropped precisely because modern Man didn't care for them. The Rosary, St Blaise, wise consel from holy priests, and architecture that gives glory to God. None of these are dogmas of the Faith, but for them to be cast aside so readily shows a mindset that did not have authentic evangelism at the forefront.
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 01:38:36 PM
It is not our job to judge people and decide who deserves Hell and who does not. We can look at people's words and determine whether they are sound Catholic teaching. We can look at their actions and determine if they are virtuous. But we do not judge souls.
Straw man logical fallacy.
No one said anything to the contrary.
Quote from: Pheo on February 24, 2014, 01:50:54 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 01:32:04 PMThey did not see what they were doing as trying to please Man. They thought they were bringing the Faith to modern Man.
I'm not sure what part of my post you're objecting to anymore. I said that "their good intentions don't change the fact" of what happened. I don't really care what they thought they were doing. On an objective level, they were throwing away gifts given to us by God in order to please Man. I never argued that they were all willing and enthusiastic agents of the diabolical.
From the horse's mouth we have an admission that relics of the past such as St Blaise and the Rosary were put away because they were thought to be outdated. Wow...
QuoteIt is obvious to us that they were wrong, but we have the benefit of hindsight. Haven't you ever done something that seemed right at the time, but later you realized that you had been wrong and foolish?
I'm sure I have. That wouldn't change how it could be described on an objective level.
You said " I refuse to aknowledge any aspect of this motive as 'good.'" This sounded to me like a comment about the subjective level of the situation. As far as I can tell, we completely agree on the objective level.
Quote from: Parresia on February 24, 2014, 02:08:00 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 01:38:36 PM
It is not our job to judge people and decide who deserves Hell and who does not. We can look at people's words and determine whether they are sound Catholic teaching. We can look at their actions and determine if they are virtuous. But we do not judge souls.
Straw man logical fallacy.
No one said anything to the contrary.
She used the expression, "I do not give priests like him a pass" in the context of "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions." That sounds to me like a person who is talking about judging souls. Perhaps I misunderstood, but it was a reasonable misunderstanding, not the deliberate misrepresentation implied by "straw man".
Quote from: Pheo on February 24, 2014, 02:03:56 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 01:32:04 PM
They thought they were bringing the Faith to modern Man.
And I object to this. They thought they were bringing Man back into the buildings (they failed in this, by the way), but there's no evidence that the Faith was their top priority. We have an admission that parts of the Faith were dropped precisely because modern Man didn't care for them. The Rosary, St Blaise, wise consel from holy priests, and architecture that gives glory to God. None of these are dogmas of the Faith, but for them to be cast aside so readily shows a mindset that did not have authentic evangelism at the forefront.
The passage claimed that they saw themselves as abandoning non-essentials in order preserve essentials of the Faith. I agree that they were probably infected with modernism to come up with such wrong ideas, but it was a distorted attempt at evangelism.
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 02:12:37 PM
Quote from: Parresia on February 24, 2014, 02:08:00 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 01:38:36 PM
It is not our job to judge people and decide who deserves Hell and who does not. We can look at people's words and determine whether they are sound Catholic teaching. We can look at their actions and determine if they are virtuous. But we do not judge souls.
Straw man logical fallacy.
No one said anything to the contrary.
She used the expression, "I do not give priests like him a pass" in the context of "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions." That sounds to me like a person who is talking about judging souls. Perhaps I misunderstood, but it was a reasonable misunderstanding, not the deliberately misrepresentation implied by "straw man".
"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" is a phrase which has come to be used far more in the abstract as a way to state that well-meaning people make things worse rather than better all the time, rather than the literal interpretation that one is actually going to Hell.
As for using them in the same context, she did not. She used "road to Hell is paved with good intentions" in the context of people changing things for the worse while claiming to be about good. She used "I do not give priests like him a pass" in the context of Catholics who were educated and formed prior to Vatican II as compared to after Vatican II when catechesis and formation in seminaries took a nosedive.
Quote from: Parresia on February 24, 2014, 02:35:41 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 02:12:37 PM
Quote from: Parresia on February 24, 2014, 02:08:00 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 01:38:36 PM
It is not our job to judge people and decide who deserves Hell and who does not. We can look at people's words and determine whether they are sound Catholic teaching. We can look at their actions and determine if they are virtuous. But we do not judge souls.
Straw man logical fallacy.
No one said anything to the contrary.
She used the expression, "I do not give priests like him a pass" in the context of "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions." That sounds to me like a person who is talking about judging souls. Perhaps I misunderstood, but it was a reasonable misunderstanding, not the deliberately misrepresentation implied by "straw man".
"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" is a phrase which has come to be used far more in the abstract as a way to state that well-meaning people make things worse rather than better all the time, rather than the literal interpretation that one is actually going to Hell.
As for using them in the same context, she did not. She used "road to Hell is paved with good intentions" in the context of people changing things for the worse while claiming to be about good. She used "I do not give priests like him a pass" in the context of Catholics who were educated and formed prior to Vatican II as compared to after Vatican II when catechesis and formation in seminaries took a nosedive.
Ruh-roh.
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 02:17:34 PMThe passage claimed that they saw themselves as abandoning non-essentials in order preserve essentials of the Faith.
I don't see much evidence for that, although in a way this reading is even more damning than my own. Today, we call this belief system "Protestantism."
Quote from: Pheo on February 24, 2014, 01:50:54 PM
QuoteIt is obvious to us that they were wrong, but we have the benefit of hindsight. Haven't you ever done something that seemed right at the time, but later you realized that you had been wrong and foolish?
I'm sure I have. That wouldn't change how it could be described on an objective level.
In this case, we had plenty of foresight. Multiple popes warned of the dangers of modernism and its potential implications and they went unheeded. Heck, we had priests and theologians that were silenced and their writings suppressed because of their heresy only to be brought right back for Vatican II anyways and given free reign to spread their garbage.
Quote from: Petrie on February 24, 2014, 02:37:59 PM
Ruh-roh.
Ruh-roh what? I accept its origins and spiritual interpretations, but it also used widely in the secular world. Heck, Karl Marx used it and there are songs named after it. It has also been used wide to mean that people with good intent are useless unless they are willing to act upon those intentions. As such, it is a phrase with many possible meanings.
Considering the call to always assume the best possible motives that Jayne is calling for, doing so in this case would seem to be warranted as well.
This particular priest may have only been caught up in the cries of "aggiornamento," but we can't forget that there were people whose hatred of tradition was far more obvious. This post made by Salus over at FE still haunts me from time to time:
"Many of the liberal convents and monasteries immediatedly purged their libraries of all pre-Vatican 2 books in a frenzy not seen since the iconoclast heresy. They hated the old ways. Sisters burned their habits and at night when a sister who still wanted the habit slept, they cut her's up. I remember a Bishop up in Edmonton Canada destroying the whole seminary's books."
The post-VatII revolution may have made use of some idiots utiles who had good intentions...but that doesn't cover all of them.
Quote from: Pheo on February 24, 2014, 02:46:29 PM
This particular priest may have only been caught up in the cries of "aggiornamento," but we can't forget that there were people whose hatred of tradition was far more obvious. This post made by Salus over at FE still haunts me from time to time:
"Many of the liberal convents and monasteries immediatedly purged their libraries of all pre-Vatican 2 books in a frenzy not seen since the iconoclast heresy. They hated the old ways. Sisters burned their habits and at night when a sister who still wanted the habit slept, they cut her's up. I remember a Bishop up in Edmonton Canada destroying the whole seminary's books."
The post-VatII revolution may have made use of some idiots utiles who had good intentions...but that doesn't cover all of them.
Agreed. It seems clear that there was plenty of intent there as well and that the disease was already present prior to the council.
Quote from: Parresia on February 24, 2014, 02:35:41 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 02:12:37 PM
Quote from: Parresia on February 24, 2014, 02:08:00 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 01:38:36 PM
It is not our job to judge people and decide who deserves Hell and who does not. We can look at people's words and determine whether they are sound Catholic teaching. We can look at their actions and determine if they are virtuous. But we do not judge souls.
Straw man logical fallacy.
No one said anything to the contrary.
She used the expression, "I do not give priests like him a pass" in the context of "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions." That sounds to me like a person who is talking about judging souls. Perhaps I misunderstood, but it was a reasonable misunderstanding, not the deliberately misrepresentation implied by "straw man".
"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" is a phrase which has come to be used far more in the abstract as a way to state that well-meaning people make things worse rather than better all the time, rather than the literal interpretation that one is actually going to Hell.
We are talking about priests failing their responsibility to their flocks. This is grave enough matter that it could send them to Hell. That is why I took it literally. It made sense that way.
Quote from: Parresia on February 24, 2014, 02:35:41 PM
As for using them in the same context, she did not. She used "road to Hell is paved with good intentions" in the context of people changing things for the worse while claiming to be about good. She used "I do not give priests like him a pass" in the context of Catholics who were educated and formed prior to Vatican II as compared to after Vatican II when catechesis and formation in seminaries took a nosedive.
I thought the entire post was about the same thing. However, based on Miriam's subsequent comments, I did misunderstand her post, so you are probably right.
Quote from: Parresia on February 24, 2014, 02:45:27 PM
Quote from: Petrie on February 24, 2014, 02:37:59 PM
Ruh-roh.
Ruh-roh what? I accept its origins and spiritual interpretations, but it also used widely in the secular world. Heck, Karl Marx used it and there are songs named after it. It has also been used wide to mean that people with good intent are useless unless they are willing to act upon those intentions. As such, it is a phrase with many possible meanings.
Considering the call to always assume the best possible motives that Jayne is calling for, doing so in this case would seem to be warranted as well.
Sorry. I bolded the part that you wrote that might cause an issue for Jayne. Just from a couple of recent threads, it is clear that Jayne is not one for modern interpretations of words or phrases. They are not valid.
I wasn't trying to say anything against your post at all. :D
Quote from: Pheo on February 24, 2014, 02:38:07 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 02:17:34 PMThe passage claimed that they saw themselves as abandoning non-essentials in order preserve essentials of the Faith.
I don't see much evidence for that, although in a way this reading is even more damning than my own. Today, we call this belief system "Protestantism."
In the current situation, there is only a fine line between Protestantism and Modernism.
Can we get back to the topic of this thread?
Thank you.
Quote from: Parresia on February 24, 2014, 02:38:54 PM
Quote from: Pheo on February 24, 2014, 01:50:54 PM
QuoteIt is obvious to us that they were wrong, but we have the benefit of hindsight. Haven't you ever done something that seemed right at the time, but later you realized that you had been wrong and foolish?
I'm sure I have. That wouldn't change how it could be described on an objective level.
In this case, we had plenty of foresight. Multiple popes warned of the dangers of modernism and its potential implications and they went unheeded. Heck, we had priests and theologians that were silenced and their writings suppressed because of their heresy only to be brought right back for Vatican II anyways and given free reign to spread their garbage.
It is a characteristic of modernism that it is insidious enough to creep in even after people have been warned about it. It attempts to cloak itself in orthodoxy.
Quote from: Petrie on February 24, 2014, 02:49:26 PM
Quote from: Parresia on February 24, 2014, 02:45:27 PM
Quote from: Petrie on February 24, 2014, 02:37:59 PM
Ruh-roh.
Ruh-roh what? I accept its origins and spiritual interpretations, but it also used widely in the secular world. Heck, Karl Marx used it and there are songs named after it. It has also been used wide to mean that people with good intent are useless unless they are willing to act upon those intentions. As such, it is a phrase with many possible meanings.
Considering the call to always assume the best possible motives that Jayne is calling for, doing so in this case would seem to be warranted as well.
Sorry. I bolded the part that you wrote that might cause an issue for Jayne. Just from a couple of recent threads, it is clear that Jayne is not one for modern interpretations of words or phrases. They are not valid.
I wasn't trying to say anything against your post at all. :D
Fair enough. Thanks for clearing it up.
Quote from: Petrie on February 24, 2014, 02:49:26 PM
Quote from: Parresia on February 24, 2014, 02:45:27 PM
Quote from: Petrie on February 24, 2014, 02:37:59 PM
Ruh-roh.
Ruh-roh what? I accept its origins and spiritual interpretations, but it also used widely in the secular world. Heck, Karl Marx used it and there are songs named after it. It has also been used wide to mean that people with good intent are useless unless they are willing to act upon those intentions. As such, it is a phrase with many possible meanings.
Considering the call to always assume the best possible motives that Jayne is calling for, doing so in this case would seem to be warranted as well.
Sorry. I bolded the part that you wrote that might cause an issue for Jayne. Just from a couple of recent threads, it is clear that Jayne is not one for modern interpretations of words or phrases. They are not valid.
Since I like Parresia, I will let him get away with it. This time. ;D
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 02:49:06 PM
We are talking about priests failing their responsibility to their flocks. This is grave enough matter that it could send them to Hell.
Jayne, I know this may be hard for you to believe:
Pope Francis could commit grave enough matter to send himself to Hell before repenting of it So could you. So could I. Doesn't matter how unlikely any particular person's belief is that such a thing could or could not happen. In fact, people with more elevated positions of responsibility (spiritual or secular) are assigned a higher standard of behavior than those with less responsibility. Jesus himself alluded to this. The possibility always exists, which is why we work out our salvation in fear and trembling.
QuoteI thought the entire post was about the same thing. However, based on Miriam's subsequent comments, I did misunderstand her post, so you are probably (definitely) right.
Quote from: Innocent Smith on February 24, 2014, 10:04:57 AM
QuoteRegarding architecture, remember that Art Deco and other streamlined forms were very popular in the 50s. The phrase, "sleek and modern" comes to mind. Straight lines, and functional design were all the rage.
I never thought of it as Art Deco. I always thought of it as Bauhuas.
"I did my thesis at Radcliffe on Bauhaus architecture. It was called Function And Fascism. I caught a lot of flack for it. It was very unpopular. Yes, I truly despise that chair." ---Judy Davis in Woody Allen's film Husbands And Wives.
http://princecavallo.wordpress.com/2012/06/11/mies-van-der-rohe-and-the-modernist-chair/
Quote from: Miriam_M on February 24, 2014, 03:52:53 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 02:49:06 PM
We are talking about priests failing their responsibility to their flocks. This is grave enough matter that it could send them to Hell.
Jayne, I know this may be hard for you to believe:
Pope Francis could commit grave enough matter to send himself to Hell before repenting of it So could you. So could I. Doesn't matter how unlikely any particular person's belief is that such a thing could or could not happen. In fact, people with more elevated positions of responsibility (spiritual or secular) are assigned a higher standard of behavior than those with less responsibility. Jesus himself alluded to this. The possibility always exists, which is why we work out our salvation in fear and trembling.
Of course I believe that. I'm not sure how you got the impression it would be hard for me to believe.
Quote from: Miriam_M on February 24, 2014, 03:52:53 PM
QuoteI thought the entire post was about the same thing. However, based on Miriam's subsequent comments, I did misunderstand her post, so you are probably (definitely) right.
I did not intend to misrepresent your position and I apologize for my mistake.
From the horse's mouth we have an admission that relics of the past such as St Blaise and the Rosary were put away because they were thought to be outdated. Wow...
[/quote]
I've been thinking the same way too. I was 6 years old in 1965, and by that time the Days of Rogation and Ember Days were taken off the liturgical calendar. I never knew they existed until I started attending Latin Mass at the age of 50, and I got myself a 1962 Roman Missal that explains everything I wasn't taught. I'm catching up real fast now.
Today, the clergy thinks that Madison Avenue-style ads will attract more men to the priesthood than doing quarterly Ember Days with fasting and masses. They think that print media is more modern than petitioning God.
The clergy also believes that man-made climate change is real. They think only man can prevent weather catastrophes by writing more restrictive EPA laws and levying higher taxes. Therefore, they would say it would be superstitious and medieval to do Rogation masses and ask God to quench the draughts, still the hurricanes and provide us with a good harvest.
I'm angry that the clergy after 1965 deprived us younger Boomers of fully knowing our Catholic faith until the Internet and blogs arrived, and Latin mass became available in more neighborhoods. Before that, I thought I knew my faith. Now I realize I didn't.
QuoteI'm angry that the clergy after 1965 deprived us younger Boomers of fully knowing our Catholic faith until the Internet and blogs arrived, and Latin mass became available in more neighborhoods. Before that, I thought I knew my faith. Now I realize I didn't.
Did you ever tell any of this to a priest or bishop? If not, you should. If so, I can just imagine how they responded. They're so suave.
For what it's worth, I recall attending the local Roman Catholic parish occasionally when I was in 7th grade, 1968. I was an Episcopalian, very "high church" and vs. the rest of my family. My mom was kind enough to drop me off at the Sunday 5pm Catholic Mass following my attendance that morning at the Episcopal parish. This was at toward the end of the transition period, I believe, following V2. I can remember thinking "I don't like the road the Roman Catholics are going down, why don't they just translate the "old Mass" into the vernacular?" I knew that "my" Anglican church had translated much Gregorian chant into English and was puzzled why the Catholic leadership didn't do that! When the novus ordo was introduced (1969?) I thought that this same leadership had thrown the baby out with the bathwater in their haste and drive to bring "the Church into the modern world." I thought that how ironic it was that the "Folk/guitar Masses" were aimed at people my age but struck me then as it does now, as shallow and corny. By the time I was about 16 I had decided in my own perspective that the majority of RC bishops had indeed had a (personal) crisis of faith and wanted to be social workers in order to validate their place in society. Oddly enough, my opinion of the RC liturgical and catechetical failures of the past 50 plus years hasn't changed much since my early teens. It also seemed to me that there was a dysfunctional perspective with the whole issue of authority in the 1960s (re: Vietnam war, contemporary rock n; roll, etc) plus that for many Catholics who were the first generation of their families to attend college in the 1960s, that they thought erroneously that their "educated" generation was somehow enlightened vs. the world view of their "uneducated" parents and forebears. This demographic would include the Boomer episcopal leadership in America at that time. Again, it seems strange to me how my perceptions of the whole decay of the western Church since V2 as a teenager remain pretty much the same today.
Quote from: EastWest7 on February 24, 2014, 06:03:58 PM
For what it's worth, I recall attending the local Roman Catholic parish occasionally when I was in 7th grade, 1968. I was an Episcopalian, very "high church" and vs. the rest of my family. My mom was kind enough to drop me off at the Sunday 5pm Catholic Mass following my attendance that morning at the Episcopal parish. This was at toward the end of the transition period, I believe, following V2. I can remember thinking "I don't like the road the Roman Catholics are going down, why don't they just translate the "old Mass" into the vernacular?" I knew that "my" Anglican church had translated much Gregorian chant into English and was puzzled why the Catholic leadership didn't do that! When the novus ordo was introduced (1969?) I thought that this same leadership had thrown the baby out with the bathwater in their haste and drive to bring "the Church into the modern world." I thought that how ironic it was that the "Folk/guitar Masses" were aimed at people my age but struck me then as it does now, as shallow and corny. By the time I was about 16 I had decided in my own perspective that the majority of RC bishops had indeed had a (personal) crisis of faith and wanted to be social workers in order to validate their place in society. Oddly enough, my opinion of the RC liturgical and catechetical failures of the past 50 plus years hasn't changed much since my early teens. It also seemed to me that there was a dysfunctional perspective with the whole issue of authority in the 1960s (re: Vietnam war, contemporary rock n; roll, etc) plus that for many Catholics who were the first generation of their families to attend college in the 1960s, that they thought erroneously that their "educated" generation was somehow enlightened vs. the world view of their "uneducated" parents and forebears. This demographic would include the Boomer episcopal leadership in America at that time. Again, it seems strange to me how my perceptions of the whole decay of the western Church since V2 as a teenager remain pretty much the same today.
I also wonder why the council fathers didn't just take the high church Anglican route, buy by all accounts, it seems the Church, especially in America and Ireland, was solidly into a low church mentality that would make an Anglican approach seem bourgeois or elitist.
My guess is the baby boom.
Quote from: Innocent Smith on February 24, 2014, 10:04:57 AM
QuoteRegarding architecture, remember that Art Deco and other streamlined forms were very popular in the 50s. The phrase, "sleek and modern" comes to mind. Straight lines, and functional design were all the rage. But our churches pointed back to flourishes and excesses of what many people considered "myths" of a previous time. Why should we keep running to St. Blase to bless throats when modern medicine had more to offer? Did priests really have more to offer us by way of counsel than Sigmund Freud in other modern psychotherapist? Who needs exorcism when you have psychotherapy? Was not our time mumbling on beads better spent with social action?
I never thought of it as Art Deco. I always thought of it as Bauhuas.
I just read up to the recreation of what the old priest said. This is pathetic. They thought they were doing good. Well maybe they did. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions and they should have realized that Christ's Church never goes out of style.
Obviously, at best, these were men who did not understand the Faith. Because innovations in society and technology made them give it up.
That's my take.
Some were likely Art Deco.
The mass majority, though, were terrible bauhaus.
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 12:22:35 PM
Quote from: Pheo on February 24, 2014, 10:17:21 AM
I wonder if the old priest came to regret what he, and others like him, did? It sounded like this post was trying to absolve him on some level...I'm sorry, but their good intentions don't change the fact that they've given us a disaster. If nothing else it confirmed what most of us suspected: Vatican II revolutionaries were motivated by a loss of the Faith and a love for the world.
Charity demands that we recognize that people who have acted wrongly nevertheless had good motives. We are to ascribe good intent to people as much as is possible. I appreciate how the blog post helps me to carry out this duty. I suspect this was part of the author's reason for writing it.
I agree that their good intentions do not take away from the disastrous results. I saw nothing to suggest that the author believes otherwise. We do not speak of their good intentions because it affects the results but for the sake of our souls. To constantly ascribe malice to others makes us into bitter, angry and unforgiving people. That is not the sort of people that God calls us to be.
You think after the first few months of saying "Why the hell is my church so empty now?", they'd have changed course to the old ways.
But, nope, they kept on with their (diabolical) program to destroy the Catholic Church.
Quote from: Parresia on February 24, 2014, 12:54:23 PM
Quote from: Pheo on February 24, 2014, 10:17:21 AM
I wonder if the old priest came to regret what he, and others like him, did? It sounded like this post was trying to absolve him on some level...I'm sorry, but their good intentions don't change the fact that they've given us a disaster. If nothing else it confirmed what most of us suspected: Vatican II revolutionaries were motivated by a loss of the Faith and a love for the world.
From the article:
One day I asked an older priest why so much had been discarded by the priests of his time. I thought I'd get a straight answer from him, because he had been one of those priest who reveled in all things new, and come to regret that many wonderful things of been discarded and lost.
I paraphrase the answer he gave in the first person. May he rest in peace; he died some years ago. But I remember his words well and he said something like this:
I have a little trouble with sympathizing him and his former actions, though. I kinda feel bad for him, yet, it seems like it's too little too late. The havoc he wreaked on his parishioners and the souls he should have been caring for while he was "reveling in all things new"... he should have stopped, looked around, and saw the rot that was being made.
Quote from: Pheo on February 24, 2014, 02:03:56 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 01:32:04 PM
They thought they were bringing the Faith to modern Man.
And I object to this. They thought they were bringing Man back into the buildings (they failed in this, by the way), but there's no evidence that the Faith was their top priority. We have an admission that parts of the Faith were dropped precisely because modern Man didn't care for them. The Rosary, St Blaise, wise consel from holy priests, and architecture that gives glory to God. None of these are dogmas of the Faith, but for them to be cast aside so readily shows a mindset that did not have authentic evangelism at the forefront.
I want to know why people think modern man and our modern world are so much more different than in times past.
Mankind is still the same, society and culture still the same. What made things change magically in the 1950s and 1960s?
Quote from: lauermar on February 24, 2014, 04:55:56 PM
QuoteFrom the horse's mouth we have an admission that relics of the past such as St Blaise and the Rosary were put away because they were thought to be outdated. Wow...
I've been thinking the same way too. I was 6 years old in 1965, and by that time the Days of Rogation and Ember Days were taken off the liturgical calendar. I never knew they existed until I started attending Latin Mass at the age of 50, and I got myself a 1962 Roman Missal that explains everything I wasn't taught. I'm catching up real fast now.
Today, the clergy thinks that Madison Avenue-style ads will attract more men to the priesthood than doing quarterly Ember Days with fasting and masses. They think that print media is more modern than petitioning God.
The clergy also believes that man-made climate change is real. They think only man can prevent weather catastrophes by writing more restrictive EPA laws and levying higher taxes. Therefore, they would say it would be superstitious and medieval to do Rogation masses and ask God to quench the draughts, still the hurricanes and provide us with a good harvest.
I'm angry that the clergy after 1965 deprived us younger Boomers of fully knowing our Catholic faith until the Internet and blogs arrived, and Latin mass became available in more neighborhoods. Before that, I thought I knew my faith. Now I realize I didn't.
I taught my Novus Ordo friends about Ember Days and the former practices for Advent, and they were astounded and eager to reclaim them as practices in the liturgical life.
Quote from: The Harlequin King on February 24, 2014, 06:11:42 PM
I also wonder why the council fathers didn't just take the high church Anglican route, buy by all accounts, it seems the Church, especially in America and Ireland, was solidly into a low church mentality that would make an Anglican approach seem bourgeois or elitist.
Well, I think the council fathers tried that. Look to the 1965 missal. It's not "that" bad.
Things really went to pot when Bugnini and his ilk took over with the Consilium (or at least with the 1970 missal, etc)
Quote from: Kaesekopf on February 25, 2014, 01:54:46 AM
Quote from: Pheo on February 24, 2014, 02:03:56 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 01:32:04 PM
They thought they were bringing the Faith to modern Man.
And I object to this. They thought they were bringing Man back into the buildings (they failed in this, by the way), but there's no evidence that the Faith was their top priority. We have an admission that parts of the Faith were dropped precisely because modern Man didn't care for them. The Rosary, St Blaise, wise consel from holy priests, and architecture that gives glory to God. None of these are dogmas of the Faith, but for them to be cast aside so readily shows a mindset that did not have authentic evangelism at the forefront.
I want to know why people think modern man and our modern world are so much more different than in times past.
Mankind is still the same, society and culture still the same. What made things change magically in the 1950s and 1960s?
It did not really, of course, but that was a common perception. There was a distorted view of science and technology. People believed that these things made them superior to all the people of the past. They could not believe there was anything to learn from tradition.
Quote from: Jayne on February 25, 2014, 06:36:47 AM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on February 25, 2014, 01:54:46 AM
Quote from: Pheo on February 24, 2014, 02:03:56 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 01:32:04 PM
They thought they were bringing the Faith to modern Man.
Mankind is still the same, society and culture still the same. What made things change magically in the 1950s and 1960s?
It did not really, of course, but that was a common perception. There was a distorted view of science and technology. People believed that these things made them superior to all the people of the past. They could not believe there was anything to learn from tradition.
Yes, I agree...and have heard such "thinking" (that contemporary society has nothing to learn from the wisdom of the past) referred to as "chronological arrogance". Even as a non-Catholic teenager I sensed back then this was a major problem in the American Church. Also, that it was part and parcel to the "enlightened groupthink" which to my perceptions at that time, seemed worse than the old, pre-Vatican emphasis on obedience (if you will...again my perceptions in the late 60s as an Episcopalian 13-14 year old). I still think groupthink as well as chronological arrogance have much to do with the growing militant secularistic humanism we see in society today.
Quote from: EastWest7 on February 25, 2014, 07:14:55 AM
Quote from: Jayne on February 25, 2014, 06:36:47 AM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on February 25, 2014, 01:54:46 AM
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2014, 01:32:04 PM
They thought they were bringing the Faith to modern Man.
Mankind is still the same, society and culture still the same. What made things change magically in the 1950s and 1960s?
It did not really, of course, but that was a common perception. There was a distorted view of science and technology. People believed that these things made them superior to all the people of the past. They could not believe there was anything to learn from tradition.
Yes, I agree...and have heard such "thinking" (that contemporary society has nothing to learn from the wisdom of the past) referred to as "chronological arrogance". Even as a non-Catholic teenager I sensed back then this was a major problem in the American Church. Also, that it was part and parcel to the "enlightened groupthink" which to my perceptions at that time, seemed worse than the old, pre-Vatican emphasis on obedience (if you will...again my perceptions in the late 60s as an Episcopalian 13-14 year old). I still think groupthink as well as chronological arrogance have much to do with the growing militant secularistic humanism we see in society today.
I really like the expression "chronological arrogance". That describes the phenomenon perfectly. And I agree with your observations about groupthink.