How the 60s affected the Catholic Church

[edwest2]

I must disagree with the transition comment. I was there before and after Vatican II. I did not love God or the Mass less after. The key thing that occurred was the coordinated creation and activation of dissidents inside and outside the Church. Destroying sexual morality, and in the process, the family, was and still is the goal. Look at comments by the three most recent Popes, especially the following by Pope John Paul II:

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2famil.htm

The family is the building block of all societies and the place where faith is nurtured in the young.

Peace,
Ed

 

[AnneElizabeth]

…President Kennedy (our first Catholic President) … …/QUOTE]

A chronic philanderer … Catholic… ???

A fellow Catholic is someone you could honestly trust your 18 year old beautiful kind loving yet naive daughter to hang around and know she won’t be molested or approached sexually.

 

[edwest2]

edwest2;12090464:

…President Kennedy (our first Catholic President) … …/QUOTE]

A chronic philanderer … Catholic… ???

A fellow Catholic is someone you could honestly trust your 18 year old beautiful kind loving yet naive daughter to hang around and know she won’t be molested or approached sexually.

Rumor and innuendo - nothing more. I was there. There were people who were terrified that the President would take advice from the Pope. I studied the Kennedy family intensively, all the way back to Ireland. Rose Kennedy was a very good and stalwart mother. The extreme jealously shown toward Mr. and Mrs. Kennedy was so strong. The President had Addison’s Disease, and had to wear a back brace.

President Kennedy’s political opponents were terrified that he would be re-elected in 1964. They tried to attach as much dirt to his person as they could. It was obvious at the time. After his assassination, they were terrified that his brother, Robert Kennedy would be elected in 1968 and used the same dirty tactics to smear him.

Certain publications, and one particular celebrity, implied a lot, but there was and still isn’t any proof.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Abu]

Irishpol #36
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.
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
the leaders of the Church are simply following the precise teachings of the Council.

Since it is Christ’s Church, with His Pope, and dogmas and doctrines protected by Him from error, the assertion that She has erred in Her teaching in Vatican II is not worthy of any Catholic. The “only ones” who conjure up erroneous doctrine are dissenters.

Which doctrines do you imagine to have been changed? And where is your authority to challenge Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and St John Paul II in praising Vatican II?

“It must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points…” (The Ratzinger Report, p 28).

In The Pope, the Council, and the Mass, by James Likoudis and Kenneth D. Whitehead:
“Pope Pius IX taught on this subject in a letter to the Abbot of Solesmes: " '…the Ecumenical Council is governed by the Holy Spirit…it is solely by the impulse of this Divine Spirit that the Council defines and proposes what must be believed…’ Not only what the Council ‘defines’ – it should be noted – but what it ‘proposes.’ " (p 38-39).

 

[adrift]

edwest2;12090464:

…President Kennedy (our first Catholic President) … …

A chronic philanderer … Catholic… ???

A fellow Catholic is someone you could honestly trust your 18 year old beautiful kind loving yet naive daughter to hang around and know she won’t be molested or approached sexually.

Unlike the law in which a person who is dead is no longer protected against libel, Catholics can be guilty of detraction even if the person is dead. Usually you will see these people come out of the woodwork when they are dead because there is no recourse for the attack on their character, Grace Kelly comes to mind. Even if he were a chronic philanderer, I would like for you to point to someone besides Mary and Jesus, who has no sin. I didn’t know that to be Catholic you were sinless.

 

[edwest2]

Unlike the law in which a person who is dead is no longer protected against libel, Catholics can be guilty of detraction even if the person is dead. Usually you will see these people come out of the woodwork when they are dead because there is no recourse for the attack on their character, Grace Kelly comes to mind. Even if he were a chronic philanderer, I would like for you to point to someone besides Mary and Jesus, who has no sin. I didn’t know that to be Catholic you were sinless.

This isn’t about being sinless. My comments directly referred to accusations related to allegations about President Kennedy having extra-marital affairs, along with his brother, Robert. These attacks on these two powerful political individuals were designed to tarnish their image in the minds of the public. Having read President Kennedy’s words before his assassination, as well as those by Robert Kennedy, the great fear was of a Kennedy Dynasty that would take the country in the “wrong” - according to those with vested interests - direction.

Character assassination is and was part of the game. The “right” people had to be elected, which very much upset these vested interests when John Kennedy, not Richard Nixon, was elected by the slimmest margin in history. Later, President Nixon would end up resigning the Presidency for cause.

Peace,
Ed

 

[johnmann]

In 1960, the first baby boomers turned 14. Over the next decade, the adolescent population exploded. The Middle East is experiencing a similar demographic change today and look what happened. The idealism of the youth took hold. Much of it was sorely needed. Desegregation, voting rights, and questioning the competency of government. There is nostalgia for the 50’s on the political right and the left. The right for the stricter morals and the left for the high taxes and unionism.

The Church was one of the institutions that responded to the upheaval. The liturgy was retooled to appeal more to the numerous youth.

 

[edwest2]

In 1960, the first baby boomers turned 14. Over the next decade, the adolescent population exploded. The Middle East is experiencing a similar demographic change today and look what happened. The idealism of the youth took hold. Much of it was sorely needed. Desegregation, voting rights, and questioning the competency of government. There is nostalgia for the 50’s on the political right and the left. The right for the stricter morals and the left for the high taxes and unionism.

The Church was one of the institutions that responded to the upheaval. The liturgy was retooled to appeal more to the numerous youth.

The liturgy was not retooled. No nostalgia is involved.

Peace,
Ed

 

[johnmann]

The liturgy was not retooled.

The world would beg to differ.

 

[fhansen]

Since it is Christ’s Church, with His Pope, and dogmas and doctrines protected by Him from error, the assertion that She has erred in Her teaching in Vatican II is not worthy of any Catholic. The “only ones” who conjure up erroneous doctrine are dissenters.

Which doctrines do you imagine to have been changed? And where is your authority to challenge Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and St John Paul II in praising Vatican II?

“It must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points…” (The Ratzinger Report, p 28).

In The Pope, the Council, and the Mass, by James Likoudis and Kenneth D. Whitehead:
“Pope Pius IX taught on this subject in a letter to the Abbot of Solesmes: " '…the Ecumenical Council is governed by the Holy Spirit…it is solely by the impulse of this Divine Spirit that the Council defines and proposes what must be believed…’ Not only what the Council ‘defines’ – it should be noted – but what it ‘proposes.’ " (p 38-39).

Nice post. And there are plenty of people “disagreeing with what is going on within the Church”, depending on what’s meant by that statement, who embrace and support Vat II fully. And if the Church didn’t emphasize it well enough in the past, it’s about time she raises up God’s handiwork to the level He intends it to be-and away from the more or less Reformed focus on man’s worthlessness.

 

[edwest2]

The world would beg to differ.

Your evidence please.

Ed

 

[johnmann]

Your evidence please.

Google the Mass of Paul VI. It’s different from what came before it. Really surprising that you didn’t know this.

 

[otjm]

The Church was one of the institutions that responded to the upheaval. The liturgy was retooled to appeal more to the numerous youth.

And 50, 60 and 70 year old men were worried about what the youth thought.

NOT.

That is a profound lack of knowledge of the liturgical movement of the prior years before Vatican 2.

It was not “retooled”; rather, there was an intent to return to a simpler liturgy of the early Church. All 7 sacraments had been under study, and while the focus is always on the Mass, all seven were revised.

 

[johnmann]

And 50, 60 and 70 year old men were worried about what the youth thought.

Yes. Pope Paul VI: “If the divine Latin language kept us apart from the children, from youth, from the world of labor and of affairs, if it were a dark screen, not a clear window, would it be right for us fishers of souls to maintain it as the exclusive language of prayer and religious intercourse?”

Also, Bugnini was barely 40 and many of the big reformers were in their 30’s at the time.

It was not “retooled”; rather, there was an intent to return to a simpler liturgy of the early Church. All 7 sacraments had been under study, and while the focus is always on the Mass, all seven were revised.

In other words, retooled.

FYI, the Mass is not a sacrament. Sacraments can be received during Mass. Maybe what you mean is the the rites were revised.

 

[whoisdiss]

Mondernism was on the rise, the church in Rome did not approve of it. The church in America started embracing it. Pope Saint John XXIII, a liberal Pope, order Vatican II for this reason and a few other reason, mainly this reason. The culture affected the church so much, causing divisions and such, the church ordered a council.

 

[ProVobis]

Pope Saint John XXIII, a liberal Pope,

They keep saying this but I refuse to accept it. He tried to forbid mutable vernaculars and signed not one document of the council. I doubt if he wanted to go past the Mass reforms he already put into place with the 62 Missal, as he fired the main architect after those changes.

 

[adrift]

In other words, retooled.

FYI, the Mass is not a sacrament. Sacraments can be received during Mass. Maybe what you mean is the the rites were revised.

I am not sure what you mean by retooled. The Sacraments were not changed. The way they were administered was. If that is what you mean than yes it could be said to have been retooled.
The Mass is of course the sending forth of the faithful to put in practice that which they have learned and use the graces they have received in the Eucharistic liturgy which is the Sacrament that takes place at every Mass although there are other Sacraments that may and do take place as well.

 

[rben20]

Thank you all for sharing your stories especially those who commented on the societal changes going on at the time. I know there were changes in general but I just specifically wanted to hear from you all what changes you witnessed first hand. The question was broad since I know everyone’s experiences will differ.

 

[edwest2]

Google the Mass of Paul VI. It’s different from what came before it. Really surprising that you didn’t know this.

Pope Benedict:

"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”

Source: vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html

The last two sentences sum things up.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Mondernism was on the rise, the church in Rome did not approve of it. The church in America started embracing it. Pope Saint John XXIII, a liberal Pope, order Vatican II for this reason and a few other reason, mainly this reason. The culture affected the church so much, causing divisions and such, the church ordered a council.

Evidence?

Peace,
Ed