J
JimmyG88
Guest
The ego of some of these people is astounding
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
I presume the faculties to hear confessions have been extended to all suspended priests, FSSPX and otherwise, but I might be wrong. Come Dec 8th, we’ll have more clarification I hope. There seems to be a lot of unanswered questions in this matter, including possible changes in Canon Law.
C
commenter
Guest
So true. To get back to the original thread topic, the Church before V2 was strongly obedient to Church authority. This included the unified Catholic Action, much championed by St. Pius X, where the laity worked in conjunction with each other and with the hierarchy, both locally, regionally and nationally, to bring Catholic social teaching into society. The disintegration of much of Catholic Action, after V2, helped bring about the world we are living in today. I was not surprised to see liberals undermining Catholic Action, but to see conservatives doing it, even those who point to St. Pius X as a model, is distressing.
P
Padres1969
Guest
Have to wonder though how much of the “lack of obedience” has to do with Vatican II and how much is just the simple change of society in general from the late 60’s onward. I sometimes wonder if Vatican II gets a poor rap simply due bad timing. Had Vatican II happened in say 1946 in the aftermath of WW2, I doubt history would look at it in quite the same way.
K
Kielbasi
Guest
The late 1940’s would not have been a good time, Europe was left in rubble after WWII, spending all kinds of money on a worldwide church council in Europe during a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions would have been a public relations catastrophe.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I have my doubts on this, but I don’t want to mention names, those who were quite influential within the council. I have read some books on the council proceedings and votes, and it seems like lines had already been drawn between liberals and conservatives.
To their credit, though, they did manage to get a lot done in the three some years. And it was reported that AL signed all 16 documents.
C
commenter
Guest
The OP was about “what Catholic life was like before Vatican II”, I think he or she meant for laity. I do agree with you, that some theologians or powerful persons had some other agendas underway just before V2, some of which came out not in the V2 documents but in the implementation. But responding to the OP, I think obedience by the laity, to the bishop, was far more common. I have heard those who supposedly adhere to the heritage from before V2, in a state of permanent defiance of their bishop. They think nothing of trashing many bishops on their websites.
This behavior is totally different from What Catholic life was Like before V2.
O
otjm
Guest
Yes, simply - nothing has changed with the four bishops; none of the priests are authorized under any stretch of the imagination to be confecting any of the other sacraments. They simply have been given the authority to hear confessions and administer reconciliation to anyone and in particular to anyone who has procured an abortion.
O
otjm
Guest
That, however, is the symptom, not the disease. But you are correct that it is intimately tied to the decline.
O
otjm
Guest
The SSPX have been in talks with Rome for going on 40 years; their talks are nothing new, and about as productive.
O
otjm
Guest
As to the issue of the Church being obedient to Church authority, one simple example should put that canard to rest, and that was the immediate whiplash reaction to Humanae Vitae. Those 80 or so theologians who took out the ad in direct confrontation to Pope Paul 6th didn’t become radicalized in the 10 or 15 years before HV. That pot was long simmering, well before Vatican 2 was even a figment in the imagination of John 23rd.
Communications was not instantaneous as it is today; there was far less reporting into every nook and cranny to find some tidbit to throw to the wolves. There was a tremendous amount that was simply under the surface; and those who were fermenting and fomenting simply came out into the open with their supposed “Spirit of Vatican 2” lack of interpretation of the documents. I say lack of interpretation, because what got foisted off on the pew sitters had nothing to do with the documents whatsoever; it was the whole cloth being spun out by those who outright rejected the Magisterium.
And as far as the comments that imply the bishops, prior to Vatican 2, were such great leaders, that too is wishful re-writing of history. While there were good bishops, altogether too many of them were not shepherds, but rather administrators, and not necessarily very good at that. Proof? The sexual abuse crisis didn’t start in the 1980’s; it simply started to be uncovered. Scads of the priests who were abusers were ordained in the 1940’s and the 1950’s, and into the early 1960’s, and it was the bishops from that time and for the next 30 years after who played a variation of the pea under the walnut shell, failing to address what eventually blew wide open. Both John Paul and Benedict made a point of focusing on getting bishops who are spiritual leaders, not managers. But it takes a long time to turn around a ship as large as the Church.
Those who presume that the Church was in its glory days prior to Vatican 2 are looking at history through foggy rose-colored glasses, seeing what they want to see, not what existed. Leave it to Beaver and Lassie might have been presumed to reflect society, but the reality was that corruption was just as rampant; except that it was far more hidden from our daily lives.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Their validity of marriages and confessions were the main points of contention amongst the laity, it seems. I would not consider it simple when the Canon lawyers are scratching their heads trying to figure out how to make the Pope’s announcement work. If this were an “internal matter” between the FSSPX and the Vatican, I would agree with you. But then by definition we wouldn’t know any of the proceedings.
T
Trad_Catholic27
Guest
The pre Vatican II years are often looked at by Catholics as a golden
age of cultural influence in America but the Church was already in trouble way before than
Modernism and Americanism were already entrenched in American secular culture by the 1950’s so even if Vatican II never was called
the Church would still be in crisis because of our inablity to reach out to the main stream culture of America during the time
age of cultural influence in America but the Church was already in trouble way before than
Modernism and Americanism were already entrenched in American secular culture by the 1950’s so even if Vatican II never was called
the Church would still be in crisis because of our inablity to reach out to the main stream culture of America during the time
C
corsair
Guest
I’m surprised how this topic got thoroughly “derailed” onto the old SSPX thingy. The OP just asked a simple question and its been answered by several posters.
How about leaving it be.
How about leaving it be.
P
ProVobis
Guest
In a sense, it had already started. Actual Mass reforms were being planned in 1948, if not before. In the U.K. at least the terms “brothers in Christ” was already being taught in school. Collegiality among bishops was a growing trend. And so forth.
But you’re right about spending money. The council did cost “all kinds of money” if not costs of other kinds.
O
otjm
Guest
Canon lawyers don’t need to make anything work unless they are hearing confessions. It is up to the priest, be they SSPX or anything else, to administer the sacrament to all who avail themselves of it.
As diocesan priests serve under a specific bishop and must have the authority granted to them by that specific bishop to confect sacraments, and because the SSPX priests do not have a bishop who can grant that, their authority comes directly from the Bishop of Rome. Not an overly complicated matter, given that he has authority over the world-wide Church. And as much as some might want to read more into it than exists, it does not change anything else.
And nothing that Cardinal Muller has said has changed.
E
edwest2
Guest
Quite the contrary. Bishop Fulton Sheen had a TV show when there were only 3, or 4 channels depending on where you lived. It ran from 1952 to 1957. Catholics had the National Legion of Decency which rated films for Catholic audiences, with Condemned as one of the categories. Look up the “Oath against Modernism.”
We had the Catholic Digest and other books and pamphlets in the back of our Church. We practiced our faith more. No one I knew was ostentatious, and most were good neighbors. My mom never owned a mink coat or diamond ring. And I did not consider myself an American. I grew in a very religious and cultural neighborhood that put God at the center. And the same was true for miles around.
Ed
P
ProVobis
Guest
And, as corsair noted, what does this have to do with pre-Vatican II?
P
ProVobis
Guest
I understand that the NLD was costing the film industry a lot of money. It was noted that the C movies were predominantly foreign films. The new codes don’t seem to have much impact; it’s the controversial ones that seem to attract viewers.
E
edwest2
Guest
It was the “art house” films that were the worst. Here’s a list of Condemned films.
1950
Code:
Bitter Rice -- Condemned on its initial American release [1]
Los Olvidados
Code:
M
The Miracle
Latuko
Code:
The Moon Is Blue -- Groundbreaking comedy by Otto Preminger. The first studio-produced film to deliberately bypass Production Code approval.
Code:
The French Line
Code:
Rififi -- Initially condemned, was re-released with changes for B rating.
I Am a Camera
Code:
And God Created Woman
Baby Doll -- Controversial comedy/drama was approved by the Production Code but condemned by the Legion of Decency.
Code:
Love in the Afternoon -- Initially condemned, the studio changed the ending.
Untamed Youth
Code:
Some Like It Hot- Status