schizophrenia

[sticknstring73]

If this seems like a mish-mosh of ideas forgive me.

Sometimes I get really worried about the Church. I read articles about Pope Francis and I’m glad that he has brought a positive light to the church to people outside of it but it just doesn’t seem real. His words are often misquoted or distorted by the media or just flat out lied about, like this last thing with the children’s book author. Then the things that he actually says or does can be just as disconcerting. Ultimately when you hear Elton John talk about how wonderful the Pope is it has got to make you pause.

I know my fellow catechumen had/have a very spotty knowledge of the faith. I know they are not convinced about the Real Presence and they think that the idea that we will be resurrected and judged, worthy of a bit of smirk. Certainly I know they are not reading anything but was given to them to read and that’s it, forget about the bible. There is this feeling when I speak to Catholics younger than myself that all of the supernatural aspects of Catholicism are a little embarrassing and should be put away. How can you even think of that and profess the belief of God and heaven at the same time? How does one hold those two concepts in their mind at the same time and not be crazy? When I am in church on Sunday are we really in unity if we are all thinking different things?

On the other side there are the traditional Catholics. When I went into RCIA I asked my pastor if we would learn anything about the Latin Mass and he said that (and I’m paraphrasing ) people who only go to the old Mass and are courting apostasy. But I’m starting to think that people who were critical about Vatican II might have a point. Please, I know that there were many things that have been distorted, things that the council never intended, but they happened nonetheless. I’m sure that from the outside traditional Catholicism may not seem as inviting initially but it never seems to fail at being more reverent. Is more reverence a problem? The drawback is that some feel traditionalists of being prideful or self-conscious, an example being the ire that is sometimes drawn from people who receive exclusively in the hand when viewing someone receiving on the tongue while kneeling. I can understand why they would feel that way living in the world as we do but there seems to me a real theological reason why people did that for such a long time. It’s Jesus in the flesh! I watched a healthy person drop the Host one morning and refuse to pick it up. Unthinkable.

What is a relatively new Catholic who really believes supposed to think of all of this? I’m starting to have real doubts, not about Jesus or the Real Presence or the Immaculate Conception or any of those wonderful TRUTHS, but about the Church in general. I have concerns about the new mass, I watch a priest in my parish race through it like he’s got someplace to be, and that doesn’t feel right or reverent. I have concerns about bishops who openly support same sex unions, existing with no admonishment from the Holy Father. How are they Catholic clergy? I don’t think that there will be a schism because you would need real conviction for that sort of thing and I just don’t think either side has the guts en masse. It just seems that there are two churches and it seems like schizophrenic thinking to believe they are the same things. One of them seems like a theological social club and the other seems God-fearing and reverent.

I am no sedevacantist, but I believe the Pope is a human man with all that implies. In the end I believe Jesus will and already has already won and I must trust Him. But in the interim it is painful to see all of this and figure out how to react.

 

[otjm]

I am only going to respond to one point; and that is people who criticize Vatican 2.

The rise of sexual license, easy divorce, the widespread use of contraception, approval of abortion, and the acceptance of homosexuality - key ingredients in the larger Western cultural collapse which penetrated deeply among Catholics - can hardly be traced to Vatican 2. Even the seeds of destruction in the intellectual life of the Church were planted long before the Council was even envisioned.

Altogether too many people who criticize Vatican 2 lack the ability to think critically, and know far less about the Church historically than they profess. But that in no way slows them down in their opinions.

The problems which exploded in the Church shortly after Vatican 2 had been festering for several generations prior to it being called. And just as the large group of theologians criticized Humanae Vitae before the ink was even dry on the document, so a large group of theologians in essence ignored the actual documents of Vatican 2 and moved forward with their view of what the Church should look like and how it needed to change; all of which went under the aegis of “Spirit of Vatican 2”. It had nothing to do with the documents themselves, but rather was part of the problem that preexisted the Council, and like the explosion within society in general, an explosion occurred within a significant segment of the intelligentsia of the Church.

And too many folks on the other side of the coin, caught flatfooted by the explosion, engaged in the logical fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc it occurred after the documents of Vatican 2 came out, therefore it was caused by them.

 

[Philomena321]

When I went into RCIA I asked my pastor if we would learn anything about the Latin Mass and he said that (and I’m paraphrasing ) people who only go to the old Mass and are courting apostasy.

This is so wrong and unfair! Pope BXVI put it straight that, “It is therefore permitted to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy.”
w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificum.html

“What Catholics once were, we are. If we are wrong, then Catholics through the ages have been wrong. We are what you once were. We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped. If we are wrong now, you were wrong then. If you were right then, we are right now.”–Robert DePiante

 

[sticknstring73]

Altogether too many people who criticize Vatican 2 lack the ability to think critically, and know far less about the Church historically than they profess. But that in no way slows them down in their opinions.

I get this I really do. Sometimes they just seem like they might be cranks but when we see the things that are going on I’m not sure. Although I have been to a few Latin Masses my home parish only has the new Mass. I am not one of those people who are tirelessly haranguing my pastor to learn the old Mass. I feel lucky that most of the time these service there is very reverent and I appreciate the clergy there as much as I can. Mostly I feel that the truth is somewhere between the two extremes.

The problems which exploded in the Church shortly after Vatican 2 had been festering for several generations prior to it being called.

Where can I read about this? What would I cite if I had to explain this?

And just as the large group of theologians criticized Humanae Vitae before the ink was even dry on the document, so a large group of theologians in essence ignored the actual documents of Vatican 2 and moved forward with their view of what the Church should look like and how it needed to change; all of which went under the aegis of "Spirit of Vatican 2

Why is this allowed? How does one take a vow of obedience and then act as if it doesn’t really matter. More than that why does it still happen? I know I have repercussions in my job for things like that. This is sort of how the media never really seems to be corrected concerning Pope Francis; it gives me fits! Who’s reading the copy?

Truthfully I want to put my mind to rest, realizing that it is all really in God’s hands. But then I look around and think What is Going On? I understand that it is not all Vatican IIs fault. I want to think that the clergy that took advantage of the spirit of Vatican II had good intentions and just got too carried away.

 

[Casilda]

Very appropriate title for this thread. I was not prepared for the condition of the church when I tried to revert in the late 70’s or more recently in 2012. I grew up in the church before V2. My husband attempted to convert this last time. It was the reassurance of a Catholic friend who had us attend a Latin Mass. Assuring us the structure of the church is still there even though parts are gone or in disrepair and unrecognizable. It was still too much to take so we side stepped into an Eastern Catholic wing

 

[sticknstring73]

Very appropriate title for this thread. I was not prepared for the condition of the church when I tried to revert in the late 70’s or more recently in 2012. I grew up in the church before V2. My husband attempted to convert this last time. It was the reassurance of a Catholic friend who had us attend a Latin Mass. Assuring us the structure of the church is still there even though parts are gone or in disrepair and unrecognizable. It was still too much to take so we side stepped into an Eastern Catholic wing

When I was growing up I had a few Greek friends who were Greek orthodox, always admired them even though I didn’t feel the call yet. I have read the author Rod Dreher did the same thing after he could not reconcile after the pedophile scandals. For my part it wouldn’t feel right to leave, I think we’re supposed to persevere in Faith, at least that’s how I feel. Thank you for sharing your story.