How the 60s affected the Catholic Church

[Abu]

Irishpol #10
But there are few faithful Catholics today, who grew up in that earlier period of time, that now believe there was ever a useful purpose in calling it. By any measure, the late 50’s were the halcyon days of the Church. There was no spiritually good reason to change anything.

There are many faithful Catholics today who appreciate the need for Vatican II, understand and welcome the teaching and changes which that Council brought.

The Council has turned so many away away from God and toward humanism that it is an absolute tragedy. We are told that it’s all about redistributing wealth and seeking “peace on earth” and “social justice”

False. The dissenters and misinterpreters have twisted and defiled the sound teaching of Vatican II.

Fr William Most examined ten legitimate changes at Vatican II and found not one was a reverse of doctrine. All gave answers to previously debated points. Fr Most concludes: “It is obvious then that Vatican II did not create a revolution in theology. There are no reversals of teaching at all, and some…are only a little different or stronger than previous teachings, but all are in the same direction.” Catholic Apologetics Today: Answers To Modern Critics, Fr William G Most, TAN, 1986, p 200].

So pastorally inclined like all Councils, Vatican II also developed doctrine profoundly, as Fr John a Hardon, S.J., affirms. Vatican II confirmed that even non infallible doctrine must be received with assent: “This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra”…when doctrine is proposed or formulated. *Lumen Gentium *(Dogmatic Constitution on the Church), 25].

Similarly, “collegial infallibility…marks a turning point in doctrinal history.” [See *The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 232-233]. This refers to the bishops around the world when teaching in accord with the Pope; when reflecting historical continuity of teaching; and in an Ecumenical Council when approved by a Pope.

The *Dogmatic Constitution On The Church *#8 (Vatican II) teaches that “The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth His holy Church…(T)his is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic.” Fr John Hardon, S.J., describes as “unequivocal” (= clearly defined), “for the first time in conciliar history — the Church is not one of many branches.” [See *The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 213].

 

[ProVobis]

I was born in 1953, so I literally grew up in the 60’s. Change is always hard.

Mass reforms began in the late 40’s, if not before, although most did not realize it then. Pius XII proclaimed in 1947 that only the Pontiff was allowed to change the Mass, or words to that effect. (The Council of Trent had prohibited any pastor in the Church of setting up new rites or contemning any received and approved rites.)

So if one looks at statistics of Mass attendance, he can see the decline starting around that time, in the 50’s, though the drop became more evident in the mid 60’s, and that included the steep decline in religious orders and Catholic school enrollments as well.

 

[AnneElizabeth]

randomuser;12087891......B:

If teacher-led school prayer was such a great thing, then why didn’t it help prevent the flood of sin that permeated the 1960’s?

That’s what I don’t understand - the people doing drugs and fornicating and everything else - those were the same kids who had teacher-led school prayer all through K-8.

Secular society made it “cool”’ I’m guessing. There were all sorts of movements, carried by new social medias of radio and television in that day. If you think about it, television and radio are a great powerful tool used to influence the masses. Never before was there anything else like it to speak to so many at once.

I think also the wars before and during that time had its effect on the public- or some it strengthened faith, for others it eroded it.  There were also new advances in science, technology.  Don't forget that also for many years before this,  agnostcism and atheism had started to grow roots in public acceptance.

Teacher led prayer alone isn’t enough on its own of course. You are forgetting too that there was an enormous rift between Protestants and Catholics… At least that is what I heard.

 

[M-Dent]

Mass reforms began in the late 40’s, if not before, although most did not realize it then. Pius XII proclaimed in 1947 that only the Pontiff was allowed to change the Mass, or words to that effect. (The Council of Trent had prohibited any pastor in the Church of setting up new rites or contemning any received and approved rites.)

So if one looks at statistics of Mass attendance, he can see the decline starting around that time, in the 50’s, though the drop became more evident in the mid 60’s, and that included the steep decline in religious orders and Catholic school enrollments as well.

Many voices in the 1940’s-50’s certainly called for changes but many in the 1960’s acted as if they had the authority to change things themselves. And they did.

 

[edwest2]

Many voices in the 1940’s-50’s certainly called for changes but many in the 1960’s acted as if they had the authority to change things themselves. And they did.

They had no such authority, meaning the Hippies, Anarchists and Marxists. Millions of dollars had to be spent, access to influential people meant that people in three-piece suits had to ‘convince’ them by using lies, half-truths and outright deception, and that included a massive effort to bring more illegal drugs into the West, along with the money spent on hiring prostitutes, filmmakers, professional troublemakers and buying, leasing or renting buildings. The media, knowingly and unknowingly, had to be manipulated as well so that the common man would hear the wrong message from previously trusted sources. Various plans of action had to be coordinated with various apparently unconnected - which was false - groups that sprang up right after Vatican II. The assault was made up of many persons and the attack, especially against Christianity, had to be coordinated. Finally, it had to look like the “people” wanted it. No. The only goal was to replace Christian life, thought and practice with a very harmful counterfeit.

It would take about 5 years to really see the pattern, but by then, certain changes had become law, and other things were buried under false belief systems.

Peace,
Ed

 

[fhansen]

Mass reforms began in the late 40’s, if not before, although most did not realize it then. Pius XII proclaimed in 1947 that only the Pontiff was allowed to change the Mass, or words to that effect. (The Council of Trent had prohibited any pastor in the Church of setting up new rites or contemning any received and approved rites.)

So if one looks at statistics of Mass attendance, he can see the decline starting around that time, in the 50’s, though the drop became more evident in the mid 60’s, and that included the steep decline in religious orders and Catholic school enrollments as well.

And the same decline occurred in Protestant churches at that time. Society changed.

 

[edwest2]

Let’s get the rest of the story. First, the United States was primarily a Christian country in the1950s and early 1960s. This was reflected by the media. Most Americans lived in rural areas as opposed to big cities. Sure, there was crime and social problems, but ‘love your neighbor’ was taught to me in the 1950s. Let’s review:

Kids were taught to respect their parents, themselves and their neighbors, young and old. There were standards we were all taught that were reinforced by our schools, our Churches (no, we did not all go the same ones) and by our neighbors. You addressed adults you knew as "Hello Mister or Missus So and So, and strangers as Sir, Miss or Ma’am. You said “please,” “Thank you,” “excuse me,” and “nice to meet you.” You also said you were sorry and had an appropriate sense of guilt and shame because you knew when you did right and wrong. It was taught to kids: don’t do this, don’t use these words. I was told to stay away from the ‘bad kids’ who stole things. I mean, you said hello and were polite, but you didn’t call them names or think you were better. Sure, it wasn’t perfect - we had crime and all the rest but we did not lock our doors at night. If a neighbor needed help, other neighbors would come and help, expecting nothing for their time except the satisfaction of knowing that people could be good to each other.

We respected our governments more, as well as the media. I recall reading beautiful editorials about the birth of Jesus around Christmas. We knew other things were going on that were immoral, but such things were private and none of our business. Divorce was rare, abortion was very rare and there was a rule about sex: No sex until marriage. Period.

By the mid-1960s, groups were forming and radicals, anarchists and Hippies were telling us things like: “You Catholics think sex is dirty. All you do is listen to the Pope. Why don’t you think for yourselves?” Translation: “We want you to live like we do and you make us uncomfortable with all of your rules that most of you actually follow!” “Don’t trust anyone over 30!” “Do whatever you want. You don’t have to listen to anybody! Dress like us. Act like us. Live with and have sex with your girlfriend. Smoke dope! You don’t need rules, or standards or self-discipline or sin or shame or guilt, just listen to us!”

At the time, we thought most of these people would disappear or just go off on their own and leave us alone. So, what happened?

1960 The FDA approves the birth control pill for sale by prescription. Most women did not want it. My mother did not want or need it.

1966 The viciously anti-family organization, the National Organization for Women is founded. Visit their web site today.

1967 In the name of “freedom,” some Catholic institutions of higher learning break their ties with the Church.

catholichistory.net/Events/LandOLakesStatement.htm

Time magazine runs a cover story about The Pill. It promises freedom from fear. Fear of what? Babies.

content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,843551,00.html

1968 Pope Paul VI sees what is going on and though the majority of his advisers urge him to relax the Church’s teaching on artificial birth control, he reaffirms it in Humanae Vitae and warns of an increase in promiscuity if his words are not heeded. There were dissidents in the Church as well. Here was the reaction at the time:

"Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.

"They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”

Source: Regnum Christi

Did you catch the part about “an event unprecedented in the history of the Church…”? That was the turning point. Defy the Pope. But makers of The Pill had to move product and support the ‘sex without love revolution.’

 

[edwest2]

1969 Dr. Bernard Nathanson co-founds NARAL, the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws. Most of us young people had no idea what methods they would use. Later, Dr. Nathanson would realize the error of his ways and tell us what was done to advance the cause of killing life in the womb.

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/

Dissidents inside the Church decide to destroy Liturgical music.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4265

And other dissidents did their part:

online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704586504574654282563939764

1970s To my astonishment, (porn) Adult Bookstores open across the country, along with strip clubs and topless bars. This took planning and millions of dollars and hiring expensive lawyers to tell us ‘religious nuts’ to shut up. They had the First Amendment right to do all this. Just several years prior, the worst you could legally do was buy Playboy which had pictures of nude and semi-nude women, and some ‘girlie’ magazines sold behind the counter at some liquor stores which had the same, but now what was meant to be totally private was literally in your face - graphic, gynecological sex acts performed by prostitutes. But it was OK, because it was legal. We were lied to. THE planned addictions occurred. These places became the new opium dens.

Just across the street from Wayne State University was a bookstore filled with books about Eastern mysticism from floor to ceiling. Being a Buddhist was cool. Yoga was cool. Got to get those young people to stop thinking about Christianity. Read a book by Swami whoever.

Life magazine has a cover story that tells women they don’t have to be mothers. The title is “The Motherhood Myth” and the issue date is September 22, 1970.

Feminist icon, Gloria Steinem co-founded Ms. Magazine. Yes, that’s where that ugly, divisive word comes from. The radicals loved to have sex with anybody, profanity is A-OK and they love porn. Ms. was Playboy for women. And a type of Class warfare started: women were the eternal victims or potential victims of men. Men were evil. Men ran everything, including the Church. Distrust your husband because he is going to leave you, or abuse you and kick you to the curb and leave you with the kids. DON"T LISTEN TO ANY MAN. Get a career. Get power. Who needs to sit at home and raise kids? If you want kids, just dump them in daycare, and when they’re old enough, give them a key, and when they’re 18 - out of the house. Gloria Steinem: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”

That type of wrong brainwashing created fertile ground for No-Fault Divorce in the 1980s, which was created out of thin air, NOT by the people. The kids are upset (no, I’m not talking about abuse) - so what? Lawyers ran ads like this in the newspaper: “No kids? $75 and you’re out. Call 800-DIVORCE.” Did anyone ask for this? Did the people ask for this? No. We were taken down the wrong path. 'Here, you don’t need a reason anymore. You don’t need to work it out. Take the easy way."

1973 The Supreme Court, not the people, decides it’s OK to kill babies in the womb. People begin to do it. At first, they are ashamed but later, it becomes just something you do. People become meaner, coarser and ‘not your neighbor’ because it’s all about what I want. I feel betrayed by all this. And as time passes, movies and TV shows become more and more like them. Dirty, filthy, shameless, dysfunctional and no sin.

“Hey man, if it feels good, do it.”

The American Psychiatric Association, under pressure from radical gay activists and closeted gays in the APA, discard years of research and by vote - not science - remove homosexuality as a disorder from their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

amazon.com/Homosexuality-American-Psychiatry-Politics-Diagnosis/dp/0691028370

1980s The wonder of Cable TV? No, porn on cable. By the mid-1980s, it’s about half good and half bad, but after that - into the abyss.

I gradually shut myself off from the culture. I didn’t need to hear George Michael yelling “I Want Your Sex” on the radio. I used to love TV but it was getting worse and worse, so that went away for the most part.

Movies? I might see one or two a year.

I have to openly reject everything they want us to love. I have friends who don’t watch TV.

“Our” culture was infiltrated by their culture where there is no right or wrong, just dysfunctionality and darkness. Beauty in art? Who needs it? Just throw paint against the canvas. Plant some pipes in a flower pot. Turn junk into art and call nothing something.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

And the same decline occurred in Protestant churches at that time. Society changed.

Society was redesigned to change. It did not happen by itself.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Tony_the_mad]

I don’t know why people cannot accept that the 60s were both good and bad. True, it loosed an open sexual immorality on the world. But it is also true that it ushered in civil rights and made it much harder for authority figures like parents, teachers and priests to sexually abuse children.

There are no halcyon days in the history of the Church. The 50s were better in many ways than today but worse in almost as many ways. My Dad grew up in the 50s and the abuse of authority of the Church in that time still haunts him in his early 70s.

Coming back to the original question of how that affected the Church, it seems to me that it did not affect it at all. The Church moves at her own pace with her own culture. The pill did affect the Church somewhat, although, I don’t think it has anything to do with the attendance decrease. No, the elephant in the room is divorce and remarriage, which is still the biggest obstacle today, IMHO. And that particular problem began in the fifties, if I recall correctly. Not that I think that the Church should change its position on divorce and remarriage, but that it handled it badly. It tried to bludgeon people to do the right thing with authority rather than to lead people with compassion and truth.

The most important question is not how was the 60s affected by the Church, though; rather, it is how did the Church affect the 60s. This is the question with the saddest answer. For the Church did nothing. There were millions of people seeking to make the world a better place and feeling abused and hurt by those in power. Millions of people, whether or not they knew it, that were seeking for a shepherd to carry them home. The Church could have tried to step into that role, but instead it chose to castigate those lost sheep. The Church saw only the weaknesses of those children and not their strengths nor their worries.

Don’t get me wrong, I have no love for those who led those children (at that time) astray. Certainly it would have been better that a millstone be tied around their neck and they were tossed into the sea. But, the Church did nothing to help those children and that is almost as unforgivable. The process of reaching out to children would begin decades later under JPII. And the full recognition that the Church must do as Christ commanded and lead by ‘acting as if they are the least’, rather than lording over their flock would not see its fruition until Pope Francis in my opinion. (The process began much earlier, but Francis made that his main goal.)

 

[ProVobis]

Here was the reaction at the time:

"Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.

"They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”

Source: Regnum Christi

It seems unfortunately “they” used the conscience clause out of Pope Paul’s Populorum Progressio (1967) for the wrong purpose. In fact, many others did as well.

PP read in part:

37…
Finally, it is for parents to take a thorough look at the matter and decide upon the number of their children. This is an obligation they take upon themselves, before their children already born, and before the community to which they belong—following the dictates of their own consciences informed by God’s law authentically interpreted, and bolstered by their trust in Him.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_26031967_populorum_en.html

 

[Abu]

The foolishness of imagining that “the Church” did little or nothing re contraception and divorce is a pathetic cop out, as the Church has always warned of the error of attempting remarriage from a valid marriage. Similarly as early as 1930, Pope Pius XI’s great *Casti Connubii *pointing to the gravity of the sin in answer to the pathetic Anglican surrender to contraception, and this was followed by the great *Humanae Vitae *from Pope Paul VI in 1968 which put paid to the outrageous Papal Commission’s Report which recommended allowing contraception.

The abuse of children by some priests stemmed from the laxity envisioned before Vatican II, and spurred on by the jettisoning of morals in the 1960’s as already revealed. There are two “scandals”: the abuse, plus the laxity of some bishops.

Sexual Abuse in Social Context: Clergy and Other Professionals
2/2004
PREFACE
According to a survey by the Washington Post, over the last four decades, less than 1.5 percent of the estimated 60,000 or more men who have served in the Catholic clergy have been accused of child sexual abuse.[iv] According to a survey by the New York Times, 1.8 percent of all priests ordained from 1950 to 2001 have been accused of child sexual abuse.[v] Thomas Kane, author of Priests are People Too, estimates that between 1 and 1.5 percent of priests have had charges made against them.[vi] Of contemporary priests, the *Associated Press *found that approximately two-thirds of 1 percent of priests have charges pending against them.[vii]

Almost all the priests who abuse children are homosexuals. Dr. Thomas Plante, a psychologist at Santa Clara University, found that “80 to 90% of all priests who in fact abuse minors have sexually engaged with adolescent boys, not prepubescent children. Thus, the teenager is more at risk than the young altar boy or girls of any age.”[viii]
catholicleague.org/rer.php?topic=The+Sex+Abuse+Scandal&id=110

Power and Authority
by Dr. Jeff Mirus, February 1, 2008
"Whether we are talking about the false spirit of Vatican II, the chaos in many religious orders, the secularization of seminaries and Catholic universities, or the decline of parish life, what we have found again and again at the center is bishops and priests (usually men of rank and influence) who themselves had lost their understanding of spiritual authority. This created an identity crisis which rendered them incapable of exercising their power effectively.

“Instead, they saw power as an unwarranted inequality, and they rushed to define their powers out of existence, flattening all spiritual relationships. They put themselves at the mercy of a revolution of their own making. And just as the resulting upheaval was caused primarily by a crisis of confidence among the clergy, so too will it be resolved only when the clergy once again understand who they are, and who the laity are, and the spiritual relationship between them. In this they will rediscover their authority. The proper exercise of priestly power will follow as surely as running water follows a thaw. Moreover, it is not just the priests who will become happier. So will the laity. Authority derives from relationships. Authority benefits both sides.”

 

[phil19034]

At my Sunday night Bible Study, someone asked our Pastor about VII

He said that part of The purpose of Vatican II was to finalize what was never finished from Vatican I due to VI getting called short due to the Italian Revolution and the two World Wars.

He’s in his Late Sixties and joined the Seminary before graduating high school, so he remembers a lot of it.

He said that the media was a huge part of the confusion. This was the first council which was not run behind closed doors. Plus the first during the age of television. The media was reporting and providing their incorrect interpretations before the Bishops ironed anything out.

Priests, nuns, seminarians, and laity started to put into action things based on what the media was announcing before the Bishops every started to figure out how to enact the council. Therefore, some practices were allowed to happen because parishes already started doing them without permission, based on their interpretations of what the media was reporting.

Parents didn’t know what was still Church teaching and what wasn’t. So the kids, teens and young adults of the sixties were getting incomplete or no Faith Formation at home. Plus, many of the parents at that time knew the Church teaching, but didn’t understand the theology behind the teachings. So when the sixties came, they couldn’t explain to their kids “why” (not my Archbishop said that this questioning was starting to happen after the & during the world wars).

So these kids during the sixties saw lots of teaching as simply old school because they had no idea of the theology behind anything.

Then, when the change from sermons to homilies went into place (which on its own was not a bad thing), adults stopped receiving weekly faith formation. Instead they started to learn more about the Scriptures (which is what a homily is supposed to do, help make sense of the readings in today’s world). But we didn’t have any adult faith formations in place, so those parent had a hard time teaching kids born in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.

He says today, we have learned from the mistakes of Faith Formation and in many places (not all) have better Child Faith formation programs, which are designed to teach kids bout not just the Bible, but what it means to be Catholic.

But it will take time, because in many ways we lost two generations. My parent’s generation (the Baby Boomers) and my generation.

We need to work hard to save the next generation.

But it’s not all bad, Catholics know the Scriptures much better than we ever did and we have more and more lay apostates which are in line with the magisterium.

If you are reading this, run for your Parish Council and press for the OF Mass to be celebrated more like it is on EWTN. Even if it’s just one Mass on Sundays. Start little, and then little by little the Church will become in line with what was envisioned.

Finally keep in mind what this other note that my pastor said: after every single council, when they dealt with an issue, the issue got worse before it got better.

God Bless

 

[edwest2]

I don’t know why people cannot accept that the 60s were both good and bad. True, it loosed an open sexual immorality on the world. But it is also true that it ushered in civil rights and made it much harder for authority figures like parents, teachers and priests to sexually abuse children.

There are no halcyon days in the history of the Church. The 50s were better in many ways than today but worse in almost as many ways. My Dad grew up in the 50s and the abuse of authority of the Church in that time still haunts him in his early 70s.

Coming back to the original question of how that affected the Church, it seems to me that it did not affect it at all. The Church moves at her own pace with her own culture. The pill did affect the Church somewhat, although, I don’t think it has anything to do with the attendance decrease. No, the elephant in the room is divorce and remarriage, which is still the biggest obstacle today, IMHO. And that particular problem began in the fifties, if I recall correctly. Not that I think that the Church should change its position on divorce and remarriage, but that it handled it badly. It tried to bludgeon people to do the right thing with authority rather than to lead people with compassion and truth.

The most important question is not how was the 60s affected by the Church, though; rather, it is how did the Church affect the 60s. This is the question with the saddest answer. For the Church did nothing. There were millions of people seeking to make the world a better place and feeling abused and hurt by those in power. Millions of people, whether or not they knew it, that were seeking for a shepherd to carry them home. The Church could have tried to step into that role, but instead it chose to castigate those lost sheep. The Church saw only the weaknesses of those children and not their strengths nor their worries.

Don’t get me wrong, I have no love for those who led those children (at that time) astray. Certainly it would have been better that a millstone be tied around their neck and they were tossed into the sea. But, the Church did nothing to help those children and that is almost as unforgivable. The process of reaching out to children would begin decades later under JPII. And the full recognition that the Church must do as Christ commanded and lead by ‘acting as if they are the least’, rather than lording over their flock would not see its fruition until Pope Francis in my opinion. (The process began much earlier, but Francis made that his main goal.)

“For the Church did nothing.” Please support that statement with facts. The Church did much but was tripped up by the wolves within and without.

I knew the Church had places to help “wayward” girls and did much charity work, but the media began to shut down. To turn its back on Christian morality. Those who labored among the sick and abused did so mostly anonymously. I was there for Pope John XXII and Pope Paul VI who are now both on their way to sainthood. BOASTING is not something the Church or we were taught to do. Is Pope Francis wrong about these two men?

The Lord lorded over me and Holy Mother Church was to be obeyed, not some groups of deviants, sexual perverts and dissidents inside the Church, especially those in teaching positions, who helped lead many astray.

Get it right. The changes were slow, gradual. As the decades passed into the 1990s, Church attendance had fallen. Why? Perverts, sexual deviants and prostitutes being celebrated on the radio and TV. I don’t know how many times I heard this after somebody complained about music: “That’s tame by today’s standards.” What standards? They had no standards. That’s when I quit listening to FM and the filthy-mouthed “shock jocks” and perverted rap - not music.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Irishpol]

There are many faithful Catholics today who appreciate the need for Vatican II, understand and welcome the teaching and changes which that Council brought.
False. The dissenters and misinterpreters have twisted and defiled the sound teaching of Vatican II.

Fr William Most examined ten legitimate changes at Vatican II and found not one was a reverse of doctrine. All gave answers to previously debated points. Fr Most concludes: “It is obvious then that Vatican II did not create a revolution in theology. There are no reversals of teaching at all, and some…are only a little different or stronger than previous teachings, but all are in the same direction.” Catholic Apologetics Today: Answers To Modern Critics, Fr William G Most, TAN, 1986, p 200].

So pastorally inclined like all Councils, Vatican II also developed doctrine profoundly, as Fr John a Hardon, S.J., affirms. Vatican II confirmed that even non infallible doctrine must be received with assent: “This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra”…when doctrine is proposed or formulated. *Lumen Gentium *(Dogmatic Constitution on the Church), 25].

Similarly, “collegial infallibility…marks a turning point in doctrinal history.” [See *The Catholic Catechism

, 1975, Doubleday, p 232-233]. This refers to the bishops around the world when teaching in accord with the Pope; when reflecting historical continuity of teaching; and in an Ecumenical Council when approved by a Pope.

The *Dogmatic Constitution On The Church *#8 (Vatican II) teaches that “The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth His holy Church…(T)his is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic.” Fr John Hardon, S.J., describes as “unequivocal” (= clearly defined), “for the first time in conciliar history — the Church is not one of many branches.” [See *The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 213].

 

[Irishpol]

The dissenters and misinterpreters have twisted and defiled the sound teaching of Vatican II.

There is little that can be said or done for those who “believe” that Vatican II was a good and necessary Council, so any effort to convince you differently would be a time-wasting exercise for us both. But it does appear, however, that while you at least the recognize that the immorality of today is a result of what you call “dissenters and misinterpreters” within the Church, but you fail to recognize that the only ones disagreeing with what is going on with in the Church are those Catholics who have insisted that the Church follow the traditional teachings. As such, your argument would necessarily be that it is the so-called “traditionalists” that are leading us all astray. That is difficult to accept. But it has to be your thesis since the secular media and the modernist bishops are in lock step on every issue except abortion and homosexual marriages. All of the earlier Church teachings such as contraception, fornication etc. have long been placed on the far back-burner by the bishops. You may find some Catholics unwise enough to engage in some sort of an academic exercise on specific issues within the Council documents, but the more thoughtful have recognized that it was the modernist teachings of the Council that has led the Church in the wrong direction. But if you fail to see the nexus between the Modernists of today and the Council of 50 years ago, nothing will help you understand. Still, I’ll share a few thoughts with you on the topic.

Most prudent individuals today recognize that the world we live in today is far less Godly and far more immoral than the pre-Vatican II period of history. I take you as one observant enough to recognize that fact. But your argument in defense of the Council is that it was “good thing”, but unfortunately, “others” have “misinterpreted” its teachings and made it a “bad thing”. Really? And who among us do you suppose those others to be? Popes? Cardinal-bishops? Archbishops? Bishops? Priests? They, by the way, are the only ones advancing the doctrines of the Catholic Church today. They are the ones who promote the happy clappy Masses and tell us that we are all good “Christians” with very little differences between us. The word “Catholic” is rarely even heard. Is this as a result of the “dissenters and misinterpreters”?

Do you not realize that these popes relates and priests are simply following through on the teachings of the Council? It is the Council (Dignitatis Humanae) that has raised up the dignity of man (as the humanistic, secular world so desires) in contradistinction to the focusing specifically on the Glory of God. No, the leaders of the Church are simply following the precise teachings of the Council. If you disagree, lay out your case with specificity as to how the “dissenters” and misinterpreters” have led us toward sin rather than away from it.
Do you really not see that it is our priests and bishops that completely avoid telling us not to sin or our souls will be forever condemned to hell? Where in the world do you think that got these ideas? From dissenters of the Council? Do you really not see that our priests and prelates refuse to mention that living together as man and wife is a mortal sin? Do you really not see that they appear that they would be willing to jump off a 10 story building before mentioning that the practice of homosexuality is a mortal sin that will condemn one to hell if they die with our having confessed their sins to a priest? Do you honestly believe that some “misinterpreters” are coming into their seminaries and sewing false seeds of confusion? This is the teaching of the bishops and priest today and it is the teaching of the Council. Remember, it is the Council that taught that the Church should no longer focus on sin (as they did before the Council); but instead, they are to teach the faithful that all that is needed is the “medicine of mercy”. Are you not aware of that?

I’m quite confident that you will never appreciate these points that I am making, but perhaps there are others who will. Perhaps there are others who will realize that the current difficulties within the Church is being caused almost exclusively by the action of the Modernist bishops and prelates––not any so-called “misinterpreters? You carry the water of the Modernists by saying that it is the “dissenters and misinterpreters” who have caused all the problems of the Church and society, but are they the ones who have Protestanized the Mass with their “Table” and their Communion in the hand, their false ecumenism and countless other errors that came out of the Council? Nevertheless, all of this is the necessary and expected results (intended or otherwise) that has inevitably occurred because the priests and bishops are doing exactly as they’ve been taught to do in seminaries across the world. This is the Modernism that Saint Pope Pius X (a true sainted pope) warned us about in his encyclical Pascendi.

 

[AnneElizabeth]

If the proverbial ‘Good Old Days’ were in the 1940’s and 1950’s - before the 1960’s - then what influence did those then-children have growing up in the 1940’s and 1950’s that would have prompted them to turn to the pill and LSD and “free love” once they turned 18? The “good old days” must not have been that good if it yielded so much sin - I cannot begin to count how many ‘baby boomers’ I know who were molested by family members. (Again, originating from the “good old days” that pre-dated the 1960’s.) So, logically, the “good old days” could not have been in era generation past the 1800’s since people born in the 1800’s would have already passed by the time the 1960’s rolled around.

What you say here is profound.

If things were as they should have been, then there would not have been such a revolt or looking for something else to satisfy. Its true that for some that doesn’t hold water, but for most-yes, I think so. People don’t run from things that ‘work’ and then try other things. They do so because they are looking for something. I’ve read many stories of lapsed Catholics who when on a spiritual adventure into other cultures and religions only to find themselves end back at the Catholic Church- with the right understanding of things,… one they didn’t have before they left for some reason,… I assume probably because they were never truly shown or taught although someone in their care probably THOUGHT they were.

One poster here pointed out how people were running towards foreign ideas and religious beliefs/practices. I would have to say they did because the ones they were in were empty and were not fulfilling, as Christ said. No, I’m not saying that Catholicism and its beliefs and practices are empty, but I am suggesting they were handed down in a way that was not edifying, nor done in the *right *way. Think of what Jesus said about the Pharisees- Do as they say, but don’t do AS they do. He’s saying they have it right, but not in the way they do it. The Pharisees were oppressing people, not helping as God intends. Jesus said they have it right, but they do it in the wrong way. Scripture says that we must worship in spirit and in truth. That’s TWO separate things. Our spirit must have the right attitude and we have to be doing things according to the way God wants it to be done.

Maybe the council was called because things were getting out of control and needed to be corrected.

I wonder often how the spiritual 'temperature" (so to speak) was just before the council.
One thing is for certain if you look at history... **When things are in transition, a manipulator knows this is his best time to act **

 

[edwest2]

Abu;12088433:

The dissenters and misinterpreters have twisted and defiled the sound teaching of Vatican II.

There is little that can be said or done for those who “believe” that Vatican II was a good and necessary Council, so any effort to convince you differently would be a time-wasting exercise for us both. But it does appear, however, that while you at least the recognize that the immorality of today is a result of what you call “dissenters and misinterpreters” within the Church, but you fail to recognize that the only ones disagreeing with what is going on with in the Church are those Catholics who have insisted that the Church follow the traditional teachings. As such, your argument would necessarily be that it is the so-called “traditionalists” that are leading us all astray. That is difficult to accept. But it has to be your thesis since the secular media and the modernist bishops are in lock step on every issue except abortion and homosexual marriages. All of the earlier Church teachings such as contraception, fornication etc. have long been placed on the far back-burner by the bishops. You may find some Catholics unwise enough to engage in some sort of an academic exercise on specific issues within the Council documents, but the more thoughtful have recognized that it was the modernist teachings of the Council that has led the Church in the wrong direction. But if you fail to see the nexus between the Modernists of today and the Council of 50 years ago, nothing will help you understand. Still, I’ll share a few thoughts with you on the topic.

Most prudent individuals today recognize that the world we live in today is far less Godly and far more immoral than the pre-Vatican II period of history. I take you as one observant enough to recognize that fact. But your argument in defense of the Council is that it was “good thing”, but unfortunately, “others” have “misinterpreted” its teachings and made it a “bad thing”. Really? And who among us do you suppose those others to be? Popes? Cardinal-bishops? Archbishops? Bishops? Priests? They, by the way, are the only ones advancing the doctrines of the Catholic Church today. They are the ones who promote the happy clappy Masses and tell us that we are all good “Christians” with very little differences between us. The word “Catholic” is rarely even heard. Is this as a result of the “dissenters and misinterpreters”?

Do you not realize that these popes relates and priests are simply following through on the teachings of the Council? It is the Council (Dignitatis Humanae) that has raised up the dignity of man (as the humanistic, secular world so desires) in contradistinction to the focusing specifically on the Glory of God. No, the leaders of the Church are simply following the precise teachings of the Council. If you disagree, lay out your case with specificity as to how the “dissenters” and misinterpreters” have led us toward sin rather than away from it.
Do you really not see that it is our priests and bishops that completely avoid telling us not to sin or our souls will be forever condemned to hell? Where in the world do you think that got these ideas? From dissenters of the Council? Do you really not see that our priests and prelates refuse to mention that living together as man and wife is a mortal sin? Do you really not see that they appear that they would be willing to jump off a 10 story building before mentioning that the practice of homosexuality is a mortal sin that will condemn one to hell if they die with our having confessed their sins to a priest? Do you honestly believe that some “misinterpreters” are coming into their seminaries and sewing false seeds of confusion? This is the teaching of the bishops and priest today and it is the teaching of the Council. Remember, it is the Council that taught that the Church should no longer focus on sin (as they did before the Council); but instead, they are to teach the faithful that all that is needed is the “medicine of mercy”. Are you not aware of that?

I’m quite confident that you will never appreciate these points that I am making, but perhaps there are others who will. Perhaps there are others who will realize that the current difficulties within the Church is being caused almost exclusively by the action of the Modernist bishops and prelates––not any so-called “misinterpreters? You carry the water of the Modernists by saying that it is the “dissenters and misinterpreters” who have caused all the problems of the Church and society, but are they the ones who have Protestanized the Mass with their “Table” and their Communion in the hand, their false ecumenism and countless other errors that came out of the Council? Nevertheless, all of this is the necessary and expected results (intended or otherwise) that has inevitably occurred because the priests and bishops are doing exactly as they’ve been taught to do in seminaries across the world. This is the Modernism that Saint Pope Pius X (a true sainted pope) warned us about in his encyclical Pascendi.

There were dissenters in the Church. I identified them. There was a priest on Catholic Radio that said things went nuts in the seminaries in the 1970s. It didn’t happen by itself. There was a priest who posted here that wrote, yes, Humanae Vitae was taught in seminary, but they were also told the Church might change its teaching about artificial contraception. So, when they became priests, what did they tell parishioners when they asked about artificial contraception? They told them “it was a personal conscience” matter. Recently, a priest on Catholic Radio said that was wrong and that message is going to change.

 

[edwest2]

As Catholics, we are required to believe and accept the Second Vatican Council. It did not even suggest the removal of the altar/communion rails or the removal of statues and other things wrongly attributed to it. Pope Benedict lays the blame where it belongs.

ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-media-spread-misinterpretations-of-vatican-ii/

The Church is changing for the better. We are in a period of Renewal.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

What you say here is profound.

If things were as they should have been, then there would not have been such a revolt or looking for something else to satisfy. Its true that for some that doesn’t hold water, but for most-yes, I think so. People don’t run from things that ‘work’ and then try other things. They do so because they are looking for something. I’ve read many stories of lapsed Catholics who when on a spiritual adventure into other cultures and religions only to find themselves end back at the Catholic Church- with the right understanding of things,… one they didn’t have before they left for some reason,… I assume probably because they were never truly shown or taught although someone in their care probably THOUGHT they were.

One poster here pointed out how people were running towards foreign ideas and religious beliefs/practices. I would have to say they did because the ones they were in were empty and were not fulfilling, as Christ said. No, I’m not saying that Catholicism and its beliefs and practices are empty, but I am suggesting they were handed down in a way that was not edifying, nor done in the *right *way. Think of what Jesus said about the Pharisees- Do as they say, but don’t do AS they do. He’s saying they have it right, but not in the way they do it. The Pharisees were oppressing people, not helping as God intends. Jesus said they have it right, but they do it in the wrong way. Scripture says that we must worship in spirit and in truth. That’s TWO separate things. Our spirit must have the right attitude and we have to be doing things according to the way God wants it to be done.

Maybe the council was called because things were getting out of control and needed to be corrected.

I wonder often how the spiritual 'temperature" (so to speak) was just before the council.

 One thing is for certain if you look at history... **When things are in transition, a manipulator knows this is his best time to act  **

Here is why the Second Vatican Council was called:

ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2open.htm

The “spiritual temperature” was strong before the Council. In fact, a booklet was issued right before the Council that touched on matters the Council would address. Also, the world was in a very precarious state in 1962. The Russians had installed Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles with nuclear warheads on the island of Cuba in 1962. President Kennedy (our first Catholic President) addressed the nation and the Russians, that an attack against the United States, or Western Europe would also be viewed as an attack against the United States. World War III looked like a possibility. Fortunately, President Kennedy ignored the recommendations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to go to war with the Russians. He negotiated directly with Russian Premier Khrushchev, along with his brother Robert, who was Attorney General of the United States, and who offered valuable advice. We didn’t lose a second of sleep over it.

Peace,
Ed