F
FenianMan
Guest
Also, keep in mind the Tridentine Mass of today is a great deal different than the Mass of the early church, or even the pre-Trent MassES.
***Obviously, but that doesn’t mean that all liturgical changes are good, which seems to be what is actually being discussed.
The reforms of Vatican Council II have little to do with what you are talking about. Abuse by Catholics, both clerical, religious and lay have a great deal to do with it. By the way, some parishes never wavered from having excellent catechesis…
Aristotle named nature “always or for the most part” for a reason. Thanks be to God for those few parishes which have been able to keep things together. Clearly most haven’t. Don’t judge by the exception.
The was horrid cathechesis WELL before V2. In fact, there has been horrid catechesis in one part of the Church or another for nearly 2000 years.
While it is true that there has always been bad catechesis (as a necessary consequent of the fall) there has never been such institutional chaos with regard to catechetical formation, let alone out and out anti-catechesis by intentionally instructing error.
The SSPX ain’t Catholic. Anyone who would jump ship has issues that need to be dealt with in addition to the problems they are faced with at their own parishes.
***This one is the real reason that I’ve written back. This is simply untrue. Cardinal Ratzinger has publicly called the SSPX an “internal affair.” There is a massive, massive difference between being disobedient materially and being unwilling to assent intellectually. While the society clealry harbors exceptionally wacky traditionalists, most of their priests and the people who attend their Masses are just exceptionally attached to the old rite. Their disobedience is tragic, but it in no way “de-Catholicizes” them. ***
Be careful of your wording. If you are indeed well-educated you’ll note that being a “Vatican II supporter” is really a prerequisite to being a Catholic Christian.
I’m a bit unclear as to what is meant by that statement. Obviously to be a Catholic one must accept the validity of the Second Vatican Council, that is assent to the content of all of the documents. That’s not the same thing as saying that all of the liturgical reforms are good, right, or proper; that ecumenism needs to be exercised in precisely the way in which it has, or that the formation and exercise of authority of local bishops conferences are super-brilliant. Just so we’re clear.
***Obviously, but that doesn’t mean that all liturgical changes are good, which seems to be what is actually being discussed.
The reforms of Vatican Council II have little to do with what you are talking about. Abuse by Catholics, both clerical, religious and lay have a great deal to do with it. By the way, some parishes never wavered from having excellent catechesis…
Aristotle named nature “always or for the most part” for a reason. Thanks be to God for those few parishes which have been able to keep things together. Clearly most haven’t. Don’t judge by the exception.
The was horrid cathechesis WELL before V2. In fact, there has been horrid catechesis in one part of the Church or another for nearly 2000 years.
While it is true that there has always been bad catechesis (as a necessary consequent of the fall) there has never been such institutional chaos with regard to catechetical formation, let alone out and out anti-catechesis by intentionally instructing error.
The SSPX ain’t Catholic. Anyone who would jump ship has issues that need to be dealt with in addition to the problems they are faced with at their own parishes.
***This one is the real reason that I’ve written back. This is simply untrue. Cardinal Ratzinger has publicly called the SSPX an “internal affair.” There is a massive, massive difference between being disobedient materially and being unwilling to assent intellectually. While the society clealry harbors exceptionally wacky traditionalists, most of their priests and the people who attend their Masses are just exceptionally attached to the old rite. Their disobedience is tragic, but it in no way “de-Catholicizes” them. ***
Be careful of your wording. If you are indeed well-educated you’ll note that being a “Vatican II supporter” is really a prerequisite to being a Catholic Christian.
I’m a bit unclear as to what is meant by that statement. Obviously to be a Catholic one must accept the validity of the Second Vatican Council, that is assent to the content of all of the documents. That’s not the same thing as saying that all of the liturgical reforms are good, right, or proper; that ecumenism needs to be exercised in precisely the way in which it has, or that the formation and exercise of authority of local bishops conferences are super-brilliant. Just so we’re clear.