You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
Chancellor
Guest
Agreed.I fall into camp 1. I also think many of the problems of the Church in the US stem from the social impact of the '60s. Not even including V2.
I think the social pressures including the so-called sexual revolution, the drug culture, civil rights issues, gender issues etc, etc have had an intense impact on every institution.
I agree with most of the people posting to this thread that the implementation of VII was abrupt and at times poorly thought through.
On the other hand, I am in the minority in believing that the “perfect storm” of cultural change would have been much worse on the pre-VII church than the stresses and impact on the VII church. Vatican II created a chuch that has been perhaps too flexible, but I also believe that the rigid reactionary romanticism of some ultra right wing Catholics today, full of lamentation and judgement while fantasizing a golden age that never existed would be laughable if it wasn’t so dangerous.
The 19th century Roman Catholic Church would not have survived the 20th century except as a haven for sentimentality and escapism. Our God who never changes is also infinitely creative.
The Chancellor
I
IrishBrigade
Guest
but I also believe that the rigid reactionary romanticism of some ultra right wing Catholics today…
…your alliterative proclivities aside, don’t you think that language such as ‘rigid reactionary’ and ‘right wing’ is unnecessarily pejorative in referring to those who wish to celebrate the Liturgy in a way that is most meaningful to us? Are you perhaps indulging in some sideline electioneering with such politically laced terminology?
…your alliterative proclivities aside, don’t you think that language such as ‘rigid reactionary’ and ‘right wing’ is unnecessarily pejorative in referring to those who wish to celebrate the Liturgy in a way that is most meaningful to us? Are you perhaps indulging in some sideline electioneering with such politically laced terminology?
D
Dempsey1919
Guest
Anyone who rejects Vatican II rejects the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was amongst the Fathers of Vatican II and he guided them in truth. By rejecting Vatican II, they are also rejecting the doctrine of Papal Infallability. The Holy Spirit would not allow the Church to teach any error. Our Lord promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail.
U
utunumsint
Guest
I couldn’t agree more. However, most of the Traditional Catholic I know have no problem with Vatican II. They just love the Tridentine Mass. Of course, these are the younger generation of people who are not shell shocked at some of the scandalous changes that happened during the 60s and 70s. I sympathize with them, even though I don’t agree with them.Agreed.
I think the social pressures including the so-called sexual revolution, the drug culture, civil rights issues, gender issues etc, etc have had an intense impact on every institution.
I agree with most of the people posting to this thread that the implementation of VII was abrupt and at times poorly thought through.
On the other hand, I am in the minority in believing that the “perfect storm” of cultural change would have been much worse on the pre-VII church than the stresses and impact on the VII church. Vatican II created a chuch that has been perhaps too flexible, but I also believe that the rigid reactionary romanticism of some ultra right wing Catholics today, full of lamentation and judgement while fantasizing a golden age that never existed would be laughable if it wasn’t so dangerous.
The 19th century Roman Catholic Church would not have survived the 20th century except as a haven for sentimentality and escapism. Our God who never changes is also infinitely creative.
Its an interesting question…what if Vatican II had never happened? I don’t know, but I have the feeling that future generations will see Vatican II as a positive turning point in the history of the church.The Chancellor
God bless,
Ut
C
Chancellor
Guest
…your alliterative proclivities aside, don’t you think that language such as ‘rigid reactionary’ and ‘right wing’ is unnecessarily pejorative in referring to those who wish to celebrate the Liturgy in a way that is most meaningful to us? Are you perhaps indulging in some sideline electioneering with such politically laced terminology?
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. I do not consider those who wish to worship in Latin (if that is what you mean) to be necessarily rigid or reactionary (romantic perhaps). I think that the loss of Latin as a church language would be bad. I do, however, stand with the Catholic church against those who would destroy the church in hope of recreating the 1950s.
Personally I am hoping that resumption of the Mozarab Rite will be allowed. I am also fond of the Anglican Rite that has been approved on an extraordinary basis for some parishes, but I don’t think that declaring a few popes to be heretics or declaring Vatican II to be the spawn of the devil would be helpful for any of us.
The Chancellor
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. I do not consider those who wish to worship in Latin (if that is what you mean) to be necessarily rigid or reactionary (romantic perhaps). I think that the loss of Latin as a church language would be bad. I do, however, stand with the Catholic church against those who would destroy the church in hope of recreating the 1950s.
Personally I am hoping that resumption of the Mozarab Rite will be allowed. I am also fond of the Anglican Rite that has been approved on an extraordinary basis for some parishes, but I don’t think that declaring a few popes to be heretics or declaring Vatican II to be the spawn of the devil would be helpful for any of us.
The Chancellor
- Status
- Not open for further replies.