I cannot take post-vatican II 'miracles' seriously

[reggieM]

Then came Vatican II. At that time I was AWOL.

I’ll offer this … you might find it fruitful to think about this part of your life. Prior to Vatican II you left the Church, as millions did. Then you came back and were surprised, etc.

I don’t want to examine your own life here on the web, but I’ll suggest that with some reflection you’ll find something about yourself in these events in your life. Then make sure to objectively and fairly put yourself in the position of the pastors of the Church – pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II. Judge them in the best light and not the worst.

No one would want to claim that since you apostasized from the Faith that everything you say now is suspect and unreliable.

But would your views have been different if you had stayed in the Church and lived through the changes (as I did) and had them explained to you? What if you had pastors and sisters that you trusted who gave good reasons why things needed to change?

I’m suggesting that the gap in your life can cause a discontinuity. It’s like leaving the party in the middle of a conversation and then returning later and wondering what people are talking about.

Now you have to fill in the gaps with something which is a lack of direct experience about the Church’s life.

 

[reggieM]

Nope, they didn’t. They gave an example of a saint who did not perform miricles in their life time. this is not required to be a saint, a saint is nothing more than a soul which is in heaven. This is why we celebrate the feast day of the solemnity of all saints. Because there are so many more saints than we can ever know.

But to be cannonized, the praying to the saint must result in miraculas ends.

That is correct.

How could we take a skeptics attitude (just like atheists) and say that the documented miracle, that occured after the saint’s death – as an answer to prayer, is “not good enough”?

Are we going to start sifting all of the miracles of the saints and then claiming some are no good and others are better? That’s secularist-modernism in my book.

The person prayed and God worked a miracle. The miracle is evaluated and approved on strict criteria. That’s actually a better process than what was used for centuries on word of mouth testimonies about the miracles of saints.

 

[reggieM]

Atheists say the same thing about Lourdes. Supposedly, those documented miracles “didn’t happen”. They’re just illusions or lies created by the Vatican for propaganda purposes.

 

[CaptainPicard]

There’s no such thing as a “1950’s Catholic”. There are Catholics that are faithful to Church teaching and those who are not.
Looking back at church history, there are very often people who are discontent after ecumenical councils. The councils rigidly define what had previously only been nebulously understood and debated prior. This can be startling for some and even lead them away from the Church because they are SURE that the Church had taught error. But the Church marches on, anyway.
It’s good to be Catholic. Since the Church is infallible, you don’t have to guess at which councils are “true” councils and which popes are the true popes. The Church is, as Paul said, “The pillar and ground of the truth.”
Instead of automatically rejecting Vatican II because it doesn’t jive with what you think Catholicism should be (a very prideful stance, akin to how Luther felt), you should read the V2 documents, learn what the Church really taught at the council and try to understand the reasoning behind the teachings. You should listen to arguments that explain why the council’s teaching actually were inline with historical Catholicism.
God Bless.

 

[cassini]

Nope, they didn’t. They gave an example of a saint who did not perform miricles in their life time. this is not required to be a saint, a saint is nothing more than a soul which is in heaven. This is why we celebrate the feast day of the solemnity of all saints. Because there are so many more saints than we can ever know.

But to be cannonized, the praying to the saint must result in miraculas ends.

I accept your correction crazzeto, read the post incorrectly. Sorry. you are perfectly right. But this does not change my view of those post vatican II miracles that seem to come as ordered.

 

[cassini]

Atheists say the same thing about Lourdes. Supposedly, those documented miracles “didn’t happen”. They’re just illusions or lies created by the Vatican for propaganda purposes.

I fully accept the Lourdes miracles, they were to uphold a dogma of Our Lady. It is the miracles that can be predicted for Vatican II supporters that I find too convenient. So far once the procedure goes ahead to canonise one of these choices then the miracle seem to follow as ordered.

 

[Bluegoat]

No. Faith changed is faith abandoned. That is the nature of the Church.

But it is not the nature of the faith of an individual, even one who is a member of the Church. Our individual faith is never complete in this world. Many, probably all, of us fail to undertand God completly, or the teachings of the Church.

And so far as it goes, the faith of the Church does not mean the understanding and belief of the Church at any particular point in time. There is no question that there has been real development of doctrine historically. THe faith of the Church as God sees it, or the angels, includes the Church in all times, the Church triumpant, the Church complete, the Church visable and invisable. We in our present state are not able to see that, even the Pope, or the greatest saints. So there is a real possibility of learning, of new understanding, or sometimes even just a new way of speaking about an old idea.

But - thinking about your saint problem, perhaps it would be useful to take a bit of a historical perspective. THe modern way of recognizing saints, who at the most basic level are anyone in Heaven, is not always how it has been done. For a long time saints were “declared” by popular sentiment, and many were local heros of one kind or another. Some were popular everywhere of course, but many remained known only locally.

The current method was developed for a variety of good reasons, but it is perhaps easy to mistake the process for the substance. A person is not a saint because she has performed a miracle - but that is what allows us to recognize that the person is indeed in Heaven. There are, one hopes, many more saints than the official ones.

But perhaps it should not be surprising that there are many more people officially recognized now. For one thing, there are actually a lot more people on the planet. And we are not confined in the way the ancients were to the local scene - we have excellent information exchange and communications, it is actually possible for the Vatican, for example, to know about the details of a great many people. And once they are known, they may be prayed to and some may make reports of miracles.

In some ways you might even say it is a fine return to some of the aspects of the older, local, model, where locally known people, real people, could be recognized by those around them for their holiness, but that it has been combined with the authority and centralization of the newer process.

 

[reggieM]

I fully accept the Lourdes miracles, they were to uphold a dogma of Our Lady.

Ok but that’s just subjectivism. You’re sifting the claims of the Church and accepting them based on human reason and not on Faith in the Divine power of the Church (canonization is an expression of infallibility).

newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm
Is the pope infallible in issuing a decree of canonization? Most theologians answer in the affirmative. It is the opinion of St. Antoninus, Melchior Cano, Suarez, Bellarmine, Bañez, Vasquez, and, among the canonists, of Gonzales Tellez, Fagnanus, Schmalzgrüber, Barbosa, Reiffenstül, Covarruvias (Variar. resol., I, x, no 13), Albitius (De Inconstantiâ in fide, xi, no 205), Petra (Comm. in Const. Apost., I, in notes to Const. I, Alex., III, no 17 sqq.), Joannes a S. Thomâ (on II-II, Q. I, disp. 9, a. 2), Silvester (Summa, s.v. Canonizatio), Del Bene (De Officio Inquisit. II, dub. 253), and many others. In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas says: “Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error.”

On what basis could you be correct about whether a miracle is true or not? Additionally, the dogma upheld by the miracles of Lourdes was a new definition – which went against the opinions of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bernard – so were the miracles just a political move by the Vatican to support their new dogma? That’s where it gets ridiculous.

It is the miracles that can be predicted for Vatican II supporters that I find too convenient. So far once the procedure goes ahead to canonise one of these choices then the miracle seem to follow as ordered.

I haven’t seen it that way myself. There was a campaign to canonize Paul VI and it did not succeed. There has been a campaign to canonize Bishop Fulton J. Sheen also and that has not had the necessary miracles. There are many more like that.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Moved…as this is not an apologetics topic.

 

[thistle]

I accept your correction crazzeto, read the post incorrectly. Sorry. you are perfectly right. But this does not change my view of those post vatican II miracles that seem to come as ordered.

You continue to avoid my question.

A person cannot be canonised without miracles having been ascribed to the person’s intercession since death.
As canonisation is in essence an infallible declaration that the person canonised is definitely in Heaven you are obliged to accept that which of course means accepting the miracles ascribed to the person canonised.
Are you telling us that you refuse to accept such infallible declarations made since Vatican II??

 

[bpbasilphx]

\For me, a real saint would be seen by all Catholics, even Christians , as one that is free from criticism of one sort or another.\

**Our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ Himself was not immune to criticism during His earthly sojourn, and even afterwards. Since when is the disciple greater than the Master. To be logical, that should mean you don’t accept HIM, either.

But guess what? YOU are not the one who decides who is determined to be a “real saint” and who is not. Or haven’t you heard this?

What you are saying simply boils down to, "I don’t like the changes in discipline and outward forms of the Latin Church since Vatican II.

Which really means that you don’t accept the authority of the Church.**

 

[JReducation]

If I’m understanding the OP correctly he/she is speaking about the miracles required for canonization. The miracles are not part of dogma. The Holy Father can dispense with them. For example, St. Francis of Assis was canonized without any miracles. He was never beatified either. Neither were St. Anthony nor St. Clare. Three of the great Franciscan saints were never put through the test for the cause of saints, even though it was in place at the time. The three were canonized on the personal reconisance of the pope. He knew them personally. He infallibly declared that they were saints. This happened long before Vatican II.

As far as those who have been beatified and canonized after Vatican II, the miracles were studied and foud to be true beyond any reasonable doubt. Among them are:

Maximilian Kolbe, Teresa of Calcutta, John XXIII, Pierre Giorgio Fraseti (sp?), Damien of Malokai, Pio of Petrocina (sp?) and many others. Let’s just take this small group. Who would question that they lived a heroic Christian life? This is what beatification and canonization means. The miracles after their death are a later requierment of the Church. This did not exist until the 12th century.

The early saints were never canonized, such as the Apostles, prophets and Church Fathers. They were accepted as saints by tradition. There were no miracles demanded for that.

The process has never been the consistent. What is consistent is that a pope must accept that they are saints. Once they are accepted as saints by a pope, no Catholic may refuse to believe it. It becomes part of the faith of the Church. Canonization by formal investigation or by the vox populi is an infallible statement of the Church. It is held without question, as we hold the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the primacy of Peter, the resurrection of Christ and the sacraments. There is no taking or leaving.

One can have a devotion to one saint and not to another. The Church does not demand that one have a devotion to every saint. She demands that every person whom she calls a saint or blessed be venerated by all the faithful. And the saints must be included in the Church’s liturgical life, whether we Catholics like that saint or not. The blesseds are a little different. They must be venerated in their home dioceses and by their religious congregation (if they were religious). Outside of their dioceses, it’s up to the local bishop to decree public veneration. If the bishop decrees public venaration of a blessed, then all Catholics in that jurisdiction must give their assent.

For example, in the diocese where I am currently stationed, the bishop has decreed that we publicly venerate Bl. John XXIII and Bl. Mother Teresa of Calcutta. We have two parishes named after them. This is not up for discussion. It’s not a matter of personal discretion. They must be venerated. But you are not obliged to have a devotion to them. By venerated it is meant that their holy day is observed and the liturgy proper to their holy day must be celebrated.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

For example, St. Francis of Assis was canonized without any miracles. He was never beatified either.

**Pope Gregory IX: The Bull of the Canonization of St. Francis: **"7. Plainly a life such as his, so holy, so passionate, so brilliant, was enough to win him a place in the Church Triumphant. Yet, because the Church Militant, which can only observe the outer appearances, does not presume to judge on its own authority those not sharing its actual state, it proposes for veneration as Saints only those whose lives on earth merited such, especially because an angel of Satan sometimes transforms himself into an angel of light (II Cor 11:14). In his generosity the omnipotent and merciful God has provided that the aforementioned Servant of Christ did come and serve Him worthily and commendably. Not permitting so great a light to remain hidden under a bushel, but wishing to put it on a lampstand to console those dwelling in the house of light (Mt 5:15), God declared through many brilliant miracles that his life has been acceptable to God and his memory should be honored by the Church Militant.

1. Therefore, since the wondrous events of his glorious life are quite well known to us because of the great familiarity he had with us while we still occupied a lower rank, and since we are fully convinced by reliable witnesses of the many brilliant miracles, we and the flock entrusted to us, by the mercy of God, are confident of being assisted at his intercession and of having in heaven a patron whose friendship we enjoyed on earth. With the consultation and approval of our Brothers, we have decreed that he be enrolled in the catalogue of saints worthy of veneration.

 

[puzzleannie]

easy puzzleanne, I never said any such thing. If you read my post carefully you will see it is the ‘miracles’ that I am questioning. As a Catholic there is no obligation on me to believe in these ‘miracles’ just as there is no obligation for me to believe in apparitions. I judge each one on its merits.

I read your post 3 times and I have no idea what it is you are questioning, which is why I ask, but the tone of the post led me to this conclusion. If that is not what you mean, please be specific what miracles, affirmed by whom, you are contesting.

 

[cassini]

Are you suggesting that the Church supports “moderism”? That is simply not the case, the Church still rejects so called Modernism.

A good friend once told me it would almost be a sin to disturb - even with the truth - those who are quite happy with things as they are in the Church. With a question like this I consider you one of these people. I believe you would get very disturbed if I were to answer your question. So, whatever you say crazzeto.

 

[cassini]

I’ll offer this … you might find it fruitful to think about this part of your life. Prior to Vatican II you left the Church, as millions did. Then you came back and were surprised, etc.

I don’t want to examine your own life here on the web, but I’ll suggest that with some reflection you’ll find something about yourself in these events in your life. Then make sure to objectively and fairly put yourself in the position of the pastors of the Church – pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II. Judge them in the best light and not the worst.

No one would want to claim that since you apostasized from the Faith that everything you say now is suspect and unreliable.

But would your views have been different if you had stayed in the Church and lived through the changes (as I did) and had them explained to you? What if you had pastors and sisters that you trusted who gave good reasons why things needed to change?

I’m suggesting that the gap in your life can cause a discontinuity. It’s like leaving the party in the middle of a conversation and then returning later and wondering what people are talking about.

Now you have to fill in the gaps with something which is a lack of direct experience about the Church’s life.

Thanks for the post ReggieM. I fear you misunderstood the term AWOL I used. Not for one minute did I apostasise, I simply stopped attending Church in the 1960s.

As a young boy in the 1950 -I am Irish by the way - I was an altar boy who volunteered to serve at every opportunity open to me and boy was the Church active in those days, with devotions, retreats, holy days, lent, etc. It seemed I was at Church 5 days a week all year long for one thing or another. I admit the reason was not my spiritual well-being but my need to avoid homework, get out in the evenings and meet my other friends all of whom were altar boys. Nonetheless, as a result of this I experienced thousands of homilies, including those retreats given by Jesuits, Dominicans etc. etc. By the time I was 16 I coulds have passed an exam as a theologian. I lived through a decade when the Church life of Catholics was as important as their other lives, sometimes more important. I lived through a time when Catholicism was ingrained into the whole fabric of society, just as it was meant to be. One had to experience it to know what REAL Catholicism is.

Accordingly, I do not think things would have been any different had I remained a church goer. Indeed I do know some of my friends who did live through the changes simply could not tolerate them and stopped going to church themselves. In time a few churches that did cater to the old ways opened and they found refuge in these.

Finally Reggie M, when word came through that the Vatican II Rome had ordered the Irish government to remove the special place given to Catholicism in the Irish Constitution, and Catholics under orders from their bishops and pope had to go to the polls to sign away this special status (as happened in a few other countries as well), there were those of us who felt betrayed by Rome. This was a new church destined to lower itself to the status of the other religions. Today, the Church’s reputation is in shreds, its influence on world affairs is almost zero, its teachings and doctrines perverted and ignored, its sainthood diminished, what is left of its priesthood and religious decimated and damaged by scandals, some of its sacraments devalued, its liturgy in chaos, many of its churches, denuded of the sacred are near empty, few seminaries and convents now exist because of the dearth of vocations, the Vatican has been turned into a circus, Eucharistic Congresses of old have been replaced by ecumenical get-togethers and World Youth Days of rock and roll prayer jamborees, and the Pope has acquired the status of a travelling pop-star.

Now let me bring you up to date on the new Church. The Irish were told by our bishop that we could all vote for that GODLESS Lisbon treaty. Many ignorant but faithful Catholics followed their bishop. The crib and other Catholic artifacts and symbols have already been removed from hospitals, nursing homes, buildings etc in Ireland because of this constitutional change ordered by Rome. Yesterday we were told that the CRUCIFIX has to be removed from all classrooms etc of Catholic schools. This law is now binding on the Irish schools. Teachers will soon be fired from Catholic schools if they fail to promote homosexuality to the children in their classrooms. I could go on reggie but I think you will see how I view things pre and post Vatican II.

 

[cassini]

There’s no such thing as a “1950’s Catholic”. There are Catholics that are faithful to Church teaching and those who are not.
Looking back at church history, there are very often people who are discontent after ecumenical councils. The councils rigidly define what had previously only been nebulously understood and debated prior. This can be startling for some and even lead them away from the Church because they are SURE that the Church had taught error. But the Church marches on, anyway.
It’s good to be Catholic. Since the Church is infallible, you don’t have to guess at which councils are “true” councils and which popes are the true popes. The Church is, as Paul said, “The pillar and ground of the truth.”
Instead of automatically rejecting Vatican II because it doesn’t jive with what you think Catholicism should be (a very prideful stance, akin to how Luther felt), you should read the V2 documents, learn what the Church really taught at the council and try to understand the reasoning behind the teachings. You should listen to arguments that explain why the council’s teaching actually were inline with historical Catholicism.
God Bless.

There is a lot here Captain Picard, but one illusion should answer. Since when is Vatican II ‘infallible’? Don’t you know that both Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI DECLINED to give it the status of infallibility because it was never intended to be doctrinal but pastoral?
In other words, Catholics are NOT required to accept its novelties as dogmas, merely as a guide as to where the council Fathers wanted the Church to go.

 

[reggieM]

Thanks for the post ReggieM. I fear you misunderstood the term AWOL I used. Not for one minute did I apostasise, I simply stopped attending Church in the 1960s.

As a young boy in the 1950 -I am Irish by the way - I was an altar boy who volunteered to serve at every opportunity open to me and boy was the Church active in those days, with devotions, retreats, holy days, lent, etc. It seemed I was at Church 5 days a week all year long for one thing or another. I admit the reason was not my spiritual well-being but my need to avoid homework, get out in the evenings and meet my other friends all of whom were altar boys. Nonetheless, as a result of this I experienced thousands of homilies, including those retreats given by Jesuits, Dominicans etc. etc. By the time I was 16 I coulds have passed an exam as a theologian. I lived through a decade when the Church life of Catholics was as important as their other lives, sometimes more important. I lived through a time when Catholicism was ingrained into the whole fabric of society, just as it was meant to be. One had to experience it to know what REAL Catholicism is.

.

cassini – thanks for this detailed explanation. Knowing about your experiences is very important and helpful – your Catholic-life has been much different than mine so I definitely understand your perspective better now.

I would like to post more later, but I’ll just summarize what I see in your story. You were stabbed in the back by one you considered a friend. That says it for me.

As an interesting coincidence – I’m reading a beautiful Catholic book entitled “The Miracle of Ireland”. I have no Irish ancestry but a majority of my Catholic friends here in the U.S. are from Irish stock so I want to learn about their beautiful land. The book explains how the Catholic faith spread and was deeply embraced in Ireland – like a part of the Irish bloodline or genetic inheritance.

I will admit that Religious Liberty document caused some immense damage - in the way you explained. Other Catholic nations had to uproot their constitutions and give way to secularising atheism – even where the population was 95% Catholic.

I would like to be able to help heal this damage where and when I can. I can also understand that God’s gracious hand can both strike us down and lift us up – and we can be stricken-down for reasons that are not due to our own personal guilt (as His own Son was thus stricken).

Basically, I agree with your assessment of the state of the Church today and what we see in the aftermath of Vatican II. But I’d only offer the idea that what we had before the Council had flaws inherent in the structure. It was going to fall one way or another. What happened was that the Holy See, instead of waiting for it to collapse, took a pro-active stance and destroyed parts that were already weak and left the rebuilding process for future generations.

So, we’re left in the rubble - wondering why we didn’t just keep the old structure.

I realize that with the pain many of us have endured and the crisis we see around us today, that this explanation doesn’t sound very convincing or hopeful or encouraging. But I’m not trying to make excuses – I really do believe that the success and thriving quality of the old structure was illusory. We had it in the U.S. – convents, seminaries, Catholic schools, universities, parishes – full to capacity. The Catholic voice commanded respect.

Now we are despoiled of almost all of that – like Christ before Pilate.

But to attain the heavenly glory we have to stay on the barque of Peter - even when our loyalty seems to be betrayed by those we trust.

I will post more later – many thanks again.

 

[cassini]

If I’m understanding the OP correctly he/she is speaking about the miracles required for canonization. The miracles are not part of dogma. The Holy Father can dispense with them. For example, St. Francis of Assis was canonized without any miracles. He was never beatified either. Neither were St. Anthony nor St. Clare. Three of the great Franciscan saints were never put through the test for the cause of saints, even though it was in place at the time. The three were canonized on the personal reconisance of the pope. He knew them personally. He infallibly declared that they were saints. This happened long before Vatican II.

As far as those who have been beatified and canonized after Vatican II, the miracles were studied and foud to be true beyond any reasonable doubt. Among them are:

Maximilian Kolbe, Teresa of Calcutta, John XXIII, Pierre Giorgio Fraseti (sp?), Damien of Malokai, Pio of Petrocina (sp?) and many others. Let’s just take this small group. Who would question that they lived a heroic Christian life? This is what beatification and canonization means. The miracles after their death are a later requierment of the Church. This did not exist until the 12th century.

The early saints were never canonized, such as the Apostles, prophets and Church Fathers. They were accepted as saints by tradition. There were no miracles demanded for that.

The process has never been the consistent. What is consistent is that a pope must accept that they are saints. Once they are accepted as saints by a pope, no Catholic may refuse to believe it. It becomes part of the faith of the Church. Canonization by formal investigation or by the vox populi is an infallible statement of the Church. It is held without question, as we hold the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the primacy of Peter, the resurrection of Christ and the sacraments. There is no taking or leaving.

One can have a devotion to one saint and not to another. The Church does not demand that one have a devotion to every saint. She demands that every person whom she calls a saint or blessed be venerated by all the faithful. And the saints must be included in the Church’s liturgical life, whether we Catholics like that saint or not. The blesseds are a little different. They must be venerated in their home dioceses and by their religious congregation (if they were religious). Outside of their dioceses, it’s up to the local bishop to decree public veneration. If the bishop decrees public venaration of a blessed, then all Catholics in that jurisdiction must give their assent.

For example, in the diocese where I am currently stationed, the bishop has decreed that we publicly venerate Bl. John XXIII and Bl. Mother Teresa of Calcutta. We have two parishes named after them. This is not up for discussion. It’s not a matter of personal discretion. They must be venerated. But you are not obliged to have a devotion to them. By venerated it is meant that their holy day is observed and the liturgy proper to their holy day must be celebrated.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you Br for your post. Many it seems, miss the point of debate in which posts like yours would never be read were the question not opened up. Perhaps it is time to clarify my position. Thanks to Pope John Paul II who canonised more saints in his pontificate that the rest put together, I believe he undermined the Catholic sainthood. If I am a Catholic I know I am required to acknowledge that as pope he has the authority to canonise as many saints as he wants to. And it may also be true canonisation is an infallible act but I believe there are those who say it is not. The whole question of what is infallible (outside of council definitions and ex cathedra pronouncements) is one that is constantly being argued. As far as I am concerned I leave it an open question until some pope defines canonisation as a dogma which none has done so far. So, I am not saying they are not saints, nor are they true miracles, I say they do not have the traditional Catholic ethos of time asnd credibility as the majority of saints have, and that in some cases - I have no doubt - they were chosen because of their Vatican II association…

What I am saying is that for ME Pope John Paul II has undermined the traditional history of canonisation and the sainthood. Because the pope made so many saints miracles had to be sought. Then miracles were required. Miracles were once very rare things. Because they were rare one was in awe of them. But once miracles became as plentiful as the number of post Vatican II saints one no longer finds them SPECIAL. These are the values I wished to raise.

As regards Catholic veneration of saints. There are saints I pray to. I can honestly say that I will never isolate and pray to certain post Vatican II saints. If they are to be included in the host of saints we catholics pray to then so be it, I have no problem with that.

Now what I notice is that nobody so far even identifies with my ‘plight’ as they would call it. If I was told I had to venerate some of these men or women whose teachings and actions in life I find repugnant to traditional teachings of the Church, of prior popes and saints, and which were so damaging to the Church, I could not do it. I could not do it, I can not do it. That is the dilemma in which I find myself and threats from fellow posters is not what I want to hear but some understanding of the plight other Catholics like myself find themselves in since Vatican II.

 

[Bluegoat]

Basically, I agree with your assessment of the state of the Church today and what we see in the aftermath of Vatican II. But I’d only offer the idea that what we had before the Council had flaws inherent in the structure. It was going to fall one way or another. What happened was that the Holy See, instead of waiting for it to collapse, took a pro-active stance and destroyed parts that were already weak and left the rebuilding process for future generations.

I think you can see an example of this with the Quiet Revolution in Quebec. It occurred in the 1960s, so people tend to assume that it was related to what happened in the rest of the CC and the secularization of society in general, but I don’t think it was actually the same. Rather the CC, which was very strong in Quebec, could not maintain the kinds of controls on peoples lives it had, and the abuses it perpetrated caught up with it.