This is not entirely true. The '70s and '80s were a debacle.Read The Wanderer, a newspaper faithful to the Magisterium. Long Live the Pope!
Pope Benedict does not owe an apology, because there was no harm done!
"Leaving CatholicismThe Church is not in decline. Vocations are back on the rise, and the liberals that populated the '70s are all but extinct. Lay movements are thriving.
The title says of the paper says it all. They are the remnant. The Catholic Church is the rest of the garment.The fact remains that the “Remnant” is barely Catholic, as it is so biased as to alienate the majority of Catholics.
I bet a dollar to a donut Cardinal Ratzinger did not use the word “Churchmen”.Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger expressed sympathy for those who’ve suffered at the hands of churchmen
Source?The Church is not in decline. Vocations are back on the rise, and the liberals that populated the '70s are all but extinct. Lay movements are thriving.
I never call anything “proof”. It is evidence that the idea of crisis is either overblown or non-existent.Are you seriously calling this an increase thus proof the Church is not in decline?
I’m not taking the position that Vatican II was right, wrong, or otherwise. I’m taking the position that, for all those who consider Vatican II changes “wrong,” for them to consider them as wrong as the sexual abuse of children is as wrong as it gets. I don’t apologize for having great difficulty equating both the cause-effect and victim aspects of the two situations. Childhood victims of sexual abuse are mentally scarred in a way that I pray neither you nor I ever have been or ever will be.As you should know, there is no salvation outside the Church. It is a fact Mass attendance declined dramatically following the ‘spirit of V2’ changes primarily to the liturgy. For all those outside the Church and in a state of mortal sin they are at great risk of eternal damnation. If the Church caused this situation then those souls are victims. It isn’t “Traditional Catholics” that deserve an apology, it’s all Catholics.
Raw numbers are not useful. What is useful is to look at is the quality of current orthodox colleges and universities (like Ave Maria, Franciscan, John Paul the Great, etc), an increase in lay activity in the form of apostolates (like CAF, for example) and the rise in vocations. The demise of the "pray, pay, and obey, also is to be considered a good thing.Are you seriously calling this an increase thus proof the Church is not in decline?
“There was an increase in seminarians in the Catholic Church from 115,919 in 2007 to 117,024 in 2008, in which Africa, Asia and Oceania enjoyed increases while Europe’s numbers dropped by 4.3 percent and America’s figures remained nearly the same.”
Here’s something relevant from the latest PEW survey:
*“More than four-in-ten Catholics in the United States (45%) do not know that their church teaches that the bread and wine used in Communion do not merely symbolize but actually become the body and blood of Christ.” *
pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-Practices/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx
I’m willing to bet that number was much higher pre-V2 thus the Church is in decline.
You’re entitled to that opinion. We’ll have to agree to disagree.I never call anything “proof”. It is evidence that the idea of crisis is either overblown or non-existent.
You make a valid point. However consider this, what if due to the ‘spirit of V2’ changes many people lost their faith and thus committed their souls to eternal damnation. Although voluntary, isn’t the end result at least as bad as the sexual abuse?I’m not taking the position that Vatican II was right, wrong, or otherwise. I’m taking the position that, for all those who consider Vatican II changes “wrong,” for them to consider them as wrong as the sexual abuse of children is as wrong as it gets. I don’t apologize for having great difficulty equating both the cause-effect and victim aspects of the two situations. Childhood victims of sexual abuse are mentally scarred in a way that I pray neither you nor I ever have been or ever will be.
You should consider that the vast majority of those who made changes “in the spirit of Vatican II” never read the documentsYou make a valid point. However consider this, what if due to the ‘spirit of V2’ changes many people lost their faith and thus committed their souls to eternal damnation. Although voluntary, isn’t the end result at least as bad as the sexual abuse?
Well I guess that makes it all better then.You should consider that the vast majority of those who made changes “in the spirit of Vatican II” never read the documents
On one hand, we have those lost souls who have suffered genuine and probably unremediable devastation at the hands of men purportedly representing the Church. On the other hand, we have those souls who, after very careful consideration I have to assume, have abandoned the Church for whatever personally justifiable reasons. Based purely on my earthly sense of morals, ethics, logic, and justice, I would be quite disappointed to learn that those in the first category are judged no more leniently than those in the second. From my limited viewpoint, I can’t begin to imagine how or why the “end result” would or should be the same. But, I pray to know the truth – and implicit in that is a willingness to accept the truth whatever it might be, just as it comes. If somehow the “end result” is, in fact, the same, then yes – by definition it is equally as bad. And in that case, my prayers would be simply to understand.You make a valid point. However consider this, what if due to the ‘spirit of V2’ changes many people lost their faith and thus committed their souls to eternal damnation. Although voluntary, isn’t the end result at least as bad as the sexual abuse?
Great article. very true. until the Mass goes back to its origins, nothing will change. until we go back to the Traditions of our Fathers, nothing will change. it will only get worse. this new religion must be stopped.
I wouldn’t say those people didn’t read the documents, however I agree with Pope Benedict XVI and other senior clergy that the documents were misinterpreted.You should consider that the vast majority of those who made changes “in the spirit of Vatican II” never read the documents
While not addressed to me (although it probably could have been), your comment that “abuse is abuse” just seems wildly off to me. Are there no gradations, here? Being molested as an altar boy is really no different than sharing pizza and beer with a liberal/revolutionary priest??? Maybe I’m talking out of turn, since I haven’t had either experience. But, you can sure bet which experience I would choose if it came down to it!Well I guess that makes it all better then.
People were told the saints didn’t exist, that the Bible was made up, that the Real Presence wasn’t real. They were told that all that old stuff was to be thrown away. When the priest is up there quoting the Jesus Seminar, or bringing people together in a semicircle to ‘confect’ pizza and beer… what are the laity supposed to think?
People were told and shown all kinds of outrageous things by revolutionary priests. It’s no wonder they lost their faith. What were they supposed to think?
That’s why I think the article makes a good point. Selfish, wicked clergy acting irresponsibly and destroying the faith of God’s people. Abuse is abuse.
I mean, people left the Church by the millions, probably by the tens of millions. And amidst that hellish anti-exodus, amidst the rubble of smashed altars and icons, amidst desolation… all you have to offer is “but they didn’t actually read the documents”? That’s really all you have to say about it?