The irony about the current state of the church is that polls show that the younger generation, the “John Paul II Generation”, as its called, is actually substantially more conservative than their parents. This is somewhat logical, as the church, much like many other institutions, tends to act like a swinging pendulum. In the 1960s, the pendulum of reform began to swing, and created change in the Catholic Church. Many (although not all) considered these changes good, but inevitably, the pendulum has a tendency to swing too far in the opposite direction. What Pope Benedict XVI is doing is NOT swinging the pendulum back to the right to return us to a pre-Vatican II state, but swinging the pendulum back to the middle, stabilizing the situation and beginning to reign in those reforms deemed unsuccessful. As with any church council, it generally takes about 100 years for things to stabilize afterward.With the election of Pope Benedict XVI, the church seems to have taken a turn back to the past. I worry that the church will lose younger people due to our current Pope’s fixation the past. What do the people in the Traditional Catholicism section feel will happen to the church with this uber-conservative pope?
Yes, and I’ve seen other polls that indicate that the young people of today are more conservative than previous generations in many aspects - not just Catholics and not just in matters of religion. It seems to be a cultural trend, at least in the US.The irony about the current state of the church is that polls show that the younger generation, the “John Paul II Generation”, as its called, is actually substantially more conservative than their parents. This is somewhat logical, as the church, much like many other institutions, tends to act like a swinging pendulum.
I don’t think he is turning back to the past. Tradition is timeless IMO.With the election of Pope Benedict XVI, the church seems to have taken a turn back to the past. I worry that the church will lose younger people due to our current Pope’s fixation the past. What do the people in the Traditional Catholicism section feel will happen to the church with this uber-conservative pope?
The Church is not going backwards. Benedict XVI is aligning it with the true intent and purposes of Vatican II. He is not a “super-conservative” pope. In fact, he was one of the main theologians who participated in many of the documents of Vatican II. After 40 years of nonsense, the Church is centering itself. Rest assured, the younger people don’t have a clue because there is nothing they can formerly relate to.With the election of Pope Benedict XVI, the church seems to have taken a turn back to the past. I worry that the church will lose younger people due to our current Pope’s fixation the past. What do the people in the Traditional Catholicism section feel will happen to the church with this uber-conservative pope?
Thanks for your comments. I have a great deal of respect for Pope Benedict, and I even went to Rome to see him. I think that his traditionalism is his strength. Liberal and left leanings have no place in the Catholic Church. Do not misunderstand me. I believe we are all sinners. I just don’t think that having the church go along with modern day thinking to accomodate progressives is any type of answer for us. Go Benedict!The irony about the current state of the church is that polls show that the younger generation, the “John Paul II Generation”, as its called, is actually substantially more conservative than their parents. This is somewhat logical, as the church, much like many other institutions, tends to act like a swinging pendulum. In the 1960s, the pendulum of reform began to swing, and created change in the Catholic Church. Many (although not all) considered these changes good, but inevitably, the pendulum has a tendency to swing too far in the opposite direction. What Pope Benedict XVI is doing is NOT swinging the pendulum back to the right to return us to a pre-Vatican II state, but swinging the pendulum back to the middle, stabilizing the situation and beginning to reign in those reforms deemed unsuccessful. As with any church council, it generally takes about 100 years for things to stabilize afterward.
I would also not characterize Pope Benedict XVI as “uber-conservative”, as he holds almost identical theological views to Pope John Paul II. It’s not fixation on the past, it’s an adherence to tradition, which is a good thing. Look at what’s happening to the Anglican Church right now, and you’ll see the dire consequences of the alternative.
(And for the record, I would consider myself just young enough to be considered a member of the “JPII” generation.")
The only problem with your analysis is that it is a condemned idea.The irony about the current state of the church is that polls show that the younger generation, the “John Paul II Generation”, as its called, is actually substantially more conservative than their parents. This is somewhat logical, as the church, much like many other institutions, tends to act like a swinging pendulum. In the 1960s, the pendulum of reform began to swing, and created change in the Catholic Church. Many (although not all) considered these changes good, but inevitably, the pendulum has a tendency to swing too far in the opposite direction. What Pope Benedict XVI is doing is NOT swinging the pendulum back to the right to return us to a pre-Vatican II state, but swinging the pendulum back to the middle, stabilizing the situation and beginning to reign in those reforms deemed unsuccessful. As with any church council, it generally takes about 100 years for things to stabilize afterward.
I would also not characterize Pope Benedict XVI as “uber-conservative”, as he holds almost identical theological views to Pope John Paul II. It’s not fixation on the past, it’s an adherence to tradition, which is a good thing. Look at what’s happening to the Anglican Church right now, and you’ll see the dire consequences of the alternative.
(And for the record, I would consider myself just young enough to be considered a member of the “JPII” generation.")
Finally, evolution in the Church itself is fed by the need of adapting itself to historical conditions and of harmonizing itself with existing forms of society. Such is their view with regard to each. And here, before proceeding further, We wish to draw attention to this whole theory of necessities or needs, for beyond all that we have seen, it is, as it were, the base and foundation of that famous method which they describe as historical.
- Although evolution is urged on by needs or necessities, yet, if controlled by these alone, it would easily overstep the boundaries of tradition, and thus, separated from its primitive vital principle, would make for ruin instead of progress. **Hence, by those who study more closely the ideas of the Modernists, evolution is described as a resultant from the conflict of two forces, one of them tending towards progress, the other towards conservation. The conserving force exists in the Church and is found in tradition; tradition is represented by religious authority, and this both by right and in fact. By right, for it is in the very nature of authority to protect tradition: and in fact, since authority, raised as it is above the contingencies of life, feels hardly, or not at all, the spurs of progress. The progressive force, on the contrary, which responds to the inner needs, lies in the individual consciences and works in them – especially in such of them as are in more close and intimate contact with life. Already we observe, Venerable Brethren, the introduction of that most pernicious doctrine which would make of the laity the factor of progress in the Church. Now it is by a species of covenant and compromise between these two forces of conservation and progress, that is to say between authority and individual consciences, that changes and advances take place. The individual consciences, or some of them, act on the collective conscience, which brings pressure to bear on the depositories of authority to make terms and to keep to them. **
----Pascendi Dominici Gregis—Pope St. Pius XWith all this in mind, one understands how it is that the Modernists express astonishment when they are reprimanded or punished.
St. Pius X is certainly one of our great popes. My parish growing up was St. Pius X, and I have a great admiration for him. That said, after carefully reading the document, it is not condemning the idea of change within the church, but change led by the laity.The only problem with your analysis is that it is a condemned idea.
----Pascendi Dominici Gregis—Pope St. Pius X
This clearly did not happen with Vatican II, and where it did, Pope Benedict is correcting the problems. I do not see that there is any conflict here.Already we observe, Venerable Brethren, the introduction of that most pernicious doctrine which would make of the laity the factor of progress in the Church.
It all goes back to poor catechetics. We have lost two generations already due to this.Those who’s parents don’t care or even want more protestant-leaning reform didn’t instill in their children their agenda to change the Church. Their kids just think 'why bother changing it when I can go over to the non-denomination community down the road?" Their kids become protestant and leave the Church.
Well, as is quoted by a popular Catholic Blog:It all goes back to poor catechetics. We have lost two generations already due to this.
So while we may have lost them for now, their children may return once The Church again demands respect for her unwavering devotion and dedication. Will they then lead their parents home? It has happened before.“What the son rejects the grandson embraces.”
~ Yiddish Proverb
That doesn’t quite hold because the document is mainly about Modernists who are “in the ranks of the priesthood itself” as indicated in the opening paragraphs of the encyclical.… after carefully reading the document, it is not condemning the idea of change within the church, but change led by the laity.
The mystery about Pope Benedict is whether or not he is trying to undo the process incrementally or merely bring the process back into line.This clearly did not happen with Vatican II, and where it did, Pope Benedict is correcting the problems. I do not see that there is any conflict here.
As a teenager, me and my friends, even those that attend modern churches, LOVE the traditional things the Pope is bringing back. We don’t want modern things, we want sacred liturgy.With the election of Pope Benedict XVI, the church seems to have taken a turn back to the past. I worry that the church will lose younger people due to our current Pope’s fixation the past. What do the people in the Traditional Catholicism section feel will happen to the church with this uber-conservative pope?
Pope Pius X was condemning Modernism. And it certainly was directed at any modernist the clergy. Where did you get the idea that it was written only against “change led by the laity”? Cite something on this if you can please.St. Pius X is certainly one of our great popes. My parish growing up was St. Pius X, and I have a great admiration for him. That said, after carefully reading the document, it is not condemning the idea of change within the church, but change led by the laity.
Pascendi said:2. That We should act without delay in this matter is made imperative especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, and, what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, animated by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the Person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious audacity, they degrade to the condition of a simple and ordinary man.
- Although they express their astonishment that We should number them amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge, he considers their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action. Nor indeed would he be wrong in regarding them as the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For, as We have said, they put into operation their designs for her undoing, not from without but from within.