"Since Vatican 2"

[edwest2]

I can affirm all that you say here. The Catholic faith, even for children, was real, and not a mere matter of rote memorization. We did not simply have recourse to what we had memorized, although we did indeed remember it. In my four years of high school, no one had sex; no one got pregnant, a fact which seems unbelievable when recounted today. But the fact is, the same was mostly true of the public high school up the street as well. Public morality was upheld by nearly all parents of whatever religion.

What we did not realize until much later was the extent to which radicals had managed to take over power in ecclesiastical and liturgical organizations, during the years following Vatican II.

That’s all I’m trying to say. We were far more trusting back then. Most of our neighbors were good neighbors and just plain nice people. I remember thinking that being an adult was going to be great, but then the wolves came in… and manipulated and abused our trust. It was all well coordinated. Now we know…

Yes, the take over of power. One religious on Catholic Radio talked about how “things went nuts” in Seminaries in the 1970s. I thought it wasn’t so bad because a lot of it was hidden…

But God has and is turning the Church back on course.

Peace,
Ed

 

[otjm]

Isn’t it true that in every age there are challenges to the Gospel?

The cultural earthquake of the last half of the 20th century is certainly on of the more noteworthy challenges. How do we deal with these challenges? Martyrs of past ages demonstrate responsibility and faithfulness to the person of Jesus Christ, to the point of shedding blood. They overcame these challenges with real faith in the person of Christ, not by decrying how contrary the culture is to the purposes of the gospel.

Well, one example recently has been the Christians in the Middle East who had someone pulling their head back while he used a knife to slowly behead them. It is called martyrdom.

Europe will be the leaders of how Christianity is going to go; currently they are almost all below the teens (as in 10%) going to Mass on a weekly basis; if you think that North America is secularized, Europe is a far greater problem. To which I would add, they are in the very serious and “hell bent for election” process (or perhaps I should say “lack of process”?) of contracepting themselves out of existence. Coupled with that is the “invasion” of Middle Easterners, the vast majority of whom would impose sharia had they the chance. And that chance will be soon coming. When the birth rate falls below replacement, as it is in more than a few countries there, it is inevitable that cultures will simply disappear, to be replaced by others. It just isn’t politically correct to discuss.

Benedict 16 spoke of a remnant Church, and while his comments seemed directed primarily, if not solely to Europe, that is what it is going to get down to. Perhaps not in my children’s lifetime, but definitely in my grandchildren’s.

And where is the Church most vibrant, if growth is any indicator? Africa comes first to mind. What has been primarily a white/Anglo-Saxon/Italian/Spanish/French/Irish Church is fast dwindling. We now have had three Popes who were not Italian; and finally one who is not (for the most part) European. I would expect that will continue.

What do we need to do? For starters, quit fussing about the superiority of one form of the Mass over another, and get a clue that it is about Christ; quit getting into petty umbrage over whether the person next to you hold out their hand as a sign of unity during the Our Father, and whether or not you hold their hand, get past a theoretical “brother/sister in Christ” and make it a real relationship in Christ.

Learn from (God bless them) our Protestant brethren about a “personal relationship with Christ” - learn to love Him; learn how to answer His question “Who do you say I am?”. Talk with Him when you rise. Remember Him through the day. Share Him with others. Have some of your last words with him as you go to bed.

Pray. The rosary. The LOTH. Other prayers. Whatever, but pray. As St. Francis apparently didn’t say - “Preach the Gospel. If necessary use words.”

 

[otjm]

Having been there, I can add this. For too many Catholics today, an hour in Church once a week, maybe a Christmas or Easter Mass and you’re done. Back when there were three or four TV channels, Bishop Fulton Sheen had a TV program called “Life is Worth Living.” It ran from 1952 to 1957.

In the back of my Church were racks filled with shirt pocket-size booklets that covered a wide variety of issues. Going to Church was like breathing. Even as kids, we knew God was in there, what the Eucharist was. The Priest said, “Body of Christ” and there was no question that it was literal. Religion class was meant to give age-appropriate understanding to young people about the faith. And for adults, there were religious groups devoted to Mary or the Sacred Heart. There was a set of banners in the front of the Church.

Once I saw the priest walking down the street and I asked my mom, where is he going? He was carrying something and she told me he was visiting someone who was sick. The Life we were taught was lived out every day. Every day. We understood good and bad, right and wrong and how to interact with others. Our faith was lived. We feared God. Unlike today, for too many.

Abortion was unheard of. (We knew it happened but it was not legal in the US.)

Divorce was rare.

There was a home run by nuns for ‘wayward girls.’

And we were neat and clean and polite.

You could turn on the TV and watch it as a family since there was no immoral content, unlike today.

And Christmas. The decorations. Christ is born! Beautiful editorials in the newspapers, and Merry Christmas! in public. A group called the ACLU helped to get God out of view.

Ed

I was there too; but a lot of what you talk about was cultural Catholicism. A big question was "How late can I come to Mas, and how early can I leave, and still fulfill my obligation. That word still rattles my cage - and yes, I fully realize that the Church aware that many Catholics are weak sucks, “obliges” us to go to Mass.

Strange, but in countries like Poland while under Soviet domination, and places like China and Vietnam, you don’t hear minimalistic, legalistic discussions about “obligation”; they will risk their life to go to Mass.

In the 50’s, which naturally lead to the 60’s, we had way, way too many bishops who were far better at administration than they were about being shepherds; it is no wonder, with the dearth of Christ-like leadership, that things blew apart at the seams after Vatican 2 when, for example, we had 200 theologians taking out full page ads telling the pew warmers they did not have to follow that old celibate idiot in the Vatican about birth control, and that their bishops had no clue.

The bishops who had not led, but had rather administered, were so totally flummoxed that they simply ducked and continued to administer while the house burned down.

We tend to look at history through rose colored glasses. What too many see as the heyday of “Bing Crosby” Catholicism was a shell which looked great on the outside, but was replete with flaws, as was soon shown when it hit the fan. We had a lot of people who knew the rules, but failed to understand that the rules were not the essence of Catholicism; becoming Christ-like was - and is.

Christ was constantly upbraiding the Pharisees who knew the law backwards and forwards. Christ never said the laws were useless, or meaningless; but He tried to get the point across that following Him was not about “obligations”, but about Love - of Him, of the Father, of one another, and of our enemies.

The “Bing Crosby” view of Catholicism was indicative of the massive desire of Catholics to be “accepted” - see, we were really not all that different from the Protestants, whom we so dearly wanted to like us and accept us, and let us in to their clubs and business and social circles. We were really upset out here in Oregon when the Klan, in their bed sheets, burned crosses on Catholic property. Fast forward a generation, and good ol’ Bingo was smoking his pipe and being “Fatherly”, trying to show that we all were not that different. Yeah, those were really the good old days, just trying to fit in.

 

[otjm]

I can affirm all that you say here. The Catholic faith, even for children, was real, and not a mere matter of rote memorization. We did not simply have recourse to what we had memorized, although we did indeed remember it. In my four years of high school, no one had sex; no one got pregnant, a fact which seems unbelievable when recounted today. But the fact is, the same was mostly true of the public high school up the street as well. Public morality was upheld by nearly all parents of whatever religion.

What we did not realize until much later was the extent to which radicals had managed to take over power in ecclesiastical and liturgical organizations, during the years following Vatican II.

Again, I beg to differ. We were “good” in that we didn’t break a lot of rules. Society in general was “good”, at least for most of what we saw. In the 50’s, the Pill was still in research; condoms were not being handed out in all the public schools; it was not that no one lusted; but rather, that the consequences were too real. And they still had “homes for wayward girls”. So not everyone was practicing continence; just most.

But let me take it from another direction. I remember the first time I read one of Scott Hahn’s books. Here was a Catholic who was on fire! Reading him made me embarrassed for most Catholics; no one, and I mean no one, talked about Christ like he did. It was like you couldn’t put a cork in him - and for everyone else, you couldn’t pry the cork out. Or if you did, nothing happened.

Maybe it was just a Protestant thing - maybe he was a Baptist? Southern type?

And it is not that we have to talk about Christ incessantly; nor is it that he does; but he is so clearly in love with Christ.

In the 50’s? Oh, yes, we went and received the Eucharist on Sunday, probably confession on Saturday; and Monday through Friday we tried so hard to be liked by all those Protestants all around us, that the fire was not about being in love with Christ; it was being in love with the businesses, the social circles, the “in” group.

It was not for no reason that Kennedy gave his speech while running for President, that Rome was not going to tell him how to run the country. Both Catholics and Protestants saw Rome, and the minions of Rome (the bishops) as one vast bureaucracy. and what they saw was far, far too close to reality.

The bishops were busy “administering”; the priests were doing the dirty work of administering, building this church and that school; and the pew warmers were there to warm the pew, give for the next round of building, and pray and obey.

But were they on fire for Christ, like Scott is? Nope. Where was that in the catechism?

It wasn’t one of the memorized answers.

 

[edwest2]

I was there too; but a lot of what you talk about was cultural Catholicism. A big question was "How late can I come to Mas, and how early can I leave, and still fulfill my obligation. That word still rattles my cage - and yes, I fully realize that the Church aware that many Catholics are weak sucks, “obliges” us to go to Mass.

Strange, but in countries like Poland while under Soviet domination, and places like China and Vietnam, you don’t hear minimalistic, legalistic discussions about “obligation”; they will risk their life to go to Mass.

In the 50’s, which naturally lead to the 60’s, we had way, way too many bishops who were far better at administration than they were about being shepherds; it is no wonder, with the dearth of Christ-like leadership, that things blew apart at the seams after Vatican 2 when, for example, we had 200 theologians taking out full page ads telling the pew warmers they did not have to follow that old celibate idiot in the Vatican about birth control, and that their bishops had no clue.

The bishops who had not led, but had rather administered, were so totally flummoxed that they simply ducked and continued to administer while the house burned down.

We tend to look at history through rose colored glasses. What too many see as the heyday of “Bing Crosby” Catholicism was a shell which looked great on the outside, but was replete with flaws, as was soon shown when it hit the fan. We had a lot of people who knew the rules, but failed to understand that the rules were not the essence of Catholicism; becoming Christ-like was - and is.

Christ was constantly upbraiding the Pharisees who knew the law backwards and forwards. Christ never said the laws were useless, or meaningless; but He tried to get the point across that following Him was not about “obligations”, but about Love - of Him, of the Father, of one another, and of our enemies.

The “Bing Crosby” view of Catholicism was indicative of the massive desire of Catholics to be “accepted” - see, we were really not all that different from the Protestants, whom we so dearly wanted to like us and accept us, and let us in to their clubs and business and social circles. We were really upset out here in Oregon when the Klan, in their bed sheets, burned crosses on Catholic property. Fast forward a generation, and good ol’ Bingo was smoking his pipe and being “Fatherly”, trying to show that we all were not that different. Yeah, those were really the good old days, just trying to fit in.

None of the above statements have a factual basis. When John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, became President in January of 1961, his being Catholic affirmed that US citizens would and did accept a Catholic to run the country. A study of the Ku Klux Klan would show that Cross burning predated them. Crosses were burned on hills or near property where a person or group they intended to intimidate lived. Every time we drove past the nearby City Hall around Christmas, there was a beautiful Nativity scene. A group called the ACLU would later become upset about that.

I, and every Catholic I knew, never felt non-accepted in our communities.

I have a book from my Catholic school days. The title: To Live Is Christ. Nothing vague.

Ed

 

[phil19034]

The Second Vatican Council wasn’t doctrinal. Both Popes John XXIII and Paul VI asserted this. For example… read the quote I included. Pope Paul asserted that the Council was an extension of the ordinary magisterium and thus not infallible.

Once again…
“In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document”

The fact is, the Second Vatican Council was pastoral, and because it did not explicitly define/clarify doctrine or condemn heresy, among many other reasons, it was not doctrinal. Now, 50 years later, we are witnessing the fruits of it. Millions upon millions leaving the faith, a severe lack of catechesis, abridged and questionable liturgy, modernist shepherds…

To be fair, there has always been confusion and schisms after each Council. Thanks to groups like Catholic Answers, Lighthouse Catholic Media, Ignatius Press, etc. we are starting to right the ship. But it will most likely take another 50 years. That’s why it’s so important to keep explaining WHY we teach what we teach.

God Bless!

 

[edwest2]

To be fair, there has always been confusion and schisms after each Council. Thanks to groups like Catholic Answers, Lighthouse Catholic Media, Ignatius Press, etc. we are starting to right the ship. But it will most likely take another 50 years. That’s why it’s so important to keep explaining WHY we teach what we teach.

God Bless!

It’s changed now, due to the work of Pope John Paul II, Pope Emeritus Benedict and now, Pope Francis, who has repeated almost everything I heard growing up Catholic in the early 1960s.

ncregister.com/daily-news/benedicts-men-u.s.-vocations-strengthen-during-his-eight-year-papacy/

Pope Francis is renewing and affirming the work of Pope Paul VI who wrote Humanae Vitae, issued in 1968 at the start of the Sexual - without love - Revolution and which contributed to the destruction of true family life. Pope Paul VI said the Church is against artificial birth control and that if his words were not heeded, there would be an increase in promiscuity.

cruxnow.com/church/2015/01/16/pope-francis-criticizes-gay-marriage-backs-contraception-ban/

Ed

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

None of the above statements have a factual basis. When John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, became President in January of 1961, his being Catholic affirmed that US citizens would and did accept a Catholic to run the country. A study of the Ku Klux Klan would show that Cross burning predated them. Crosses were burned on hills or near property where a person or group they intended to intimidate lived. Every time we drove past the nearby City Hall around Christmas, there was a beautiful Nativity scene. A group called the ACLU would later become upset about that.

I, and every Catholic I knew, never felt non-accepted in our communities.

I have a book from my Catholic school days. The title: To Live Is Christ. Nothing vague.

Ed

Actually, while 34,220,984 citizens did accept a Catholic president, 34,108,157 citizens did NOT accept a Catholic president, the difference in those two numbers usually attributed to Richard Daley of Chicago. So I don’t think it’s accurate to paint a warm fuzzy picture of the acceptance of Catholicism in the early 60’s based on JFK’s election.

 

[DaveBj]

Actually, while 34,220,984 citizens did accept a Catholic president, 34,108,157 citizens did NOT accept a Catholic president, the difference in those two numbers usually attributed to Richard Daley of Chicago. So I don’t think it’s accurate to paint a warm fuzzy picture of the acceptance of Catholicism in the early 60’s based on JFK’s election.

Don’t forget those who “voted against Kennedy” by not voting at all.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s changed now, due to the work of Pope John Paul II, Pope Emeritus Benedict and now, Pope Francis, who has repeated almost everything I heard growing up Catholic in the early 1960s.

Yes, but what’s also changed is that Christianity is coming under attack again, and in real blood. When death stares you in the face, you start praying. Happened during the major war.

 

[edwest2]

Yes, but what’s also changed is that Christianity is coming under attack again, and in real blood. When death stares you in the face, you start praying. Happened during the major war.

Christianity has always been under attack. A lot of Christians died because of their beliefs.

As I was taught, I pray every day. I also warn against the encroachment of novelty among regular Christians in the pews. And the worship of the god Change, who demands, well, change.

Ed

 

[otjm]

None of the above statements have a factual basis. When John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, became President in January of 1961, his being Catholic affirmed that US citizens would and did accept a Catholic to run the country. A study of the Ku Klux Klan would show that Cross burning predated them. Crosses were burned on hills or near property where a person or group they intended to intimidate lived. Every time we drove past the nearby City Hall around Christmas, there was a beautiful Nativity scene. A group called the ACLU would later become upset about that.

I, and every Catholic I knew, never felt non-accepted in our communities.

I have a book from my Catholic school days. The title: To Live Is Christ. Nothing vague.

Ed

Every one of them has a factual basis; you just need to take the blinders off and do a bit more reading.

 

[JimG]

Again, I beg to differ. We were “good” in that we didn’t break a lot of rules. Society in general was “good”, at least for most of what we saw. In the 50’s, the Pill was still in research; condoms were not being handed out in all the public schools; it was not that no one lusted; but rather, that the consequences were too real. And they still had “homes for wayward girls”. So not everyone was practicing continence; just most.

But let me take it from another direction. I remember the first time I read one of Scott Hahn’s books. Here was a Catholic who was on fire! Reading him made me embarrassed for most Catholics; no one, and I mean no one, talked about Christ like he did. It was like you couldn’t put a cork in him - and for everyone else, you couldn’t pry the cork out. Or if you did, nothing happened.

Maybe it was just a Protestant thing - maybe he was a Baptist? Southern type?

And it is not that we have to talk about Christ incessantly; nor is it that he does; but he is so clearly in love with Christ.

In the 50’s? Oh, yes, we went and received the Eucharist on Sunday, probably confession on Saturday; and Monday through Friday we tried so hard to be liked by all those Protestants all around us, that the fire was not about being in love with Christ; it was being in love with the businesses, the social circles, the “in” group.

It was not for no reason that Kennedy gave his speech while running for President, that Rome was not going to tell him how to run the country. Both Catholics and Protestants saw Rome, and the minions of Rome (the bishops) as one vast bureaucracy. and what they saw was far, far too close to reality.

The bishops were busy “administering”; the priests were doing the dirty work of administering, building this church and that school; and the pew warmers were there to warm the pew, give for the next round of building, and pray and obey.

But were they on fire for Christ, like Scott is? Nope. Where was that in the catechism?

It wasn’t one of the memorized answers.

Hmm, my recollections are of faith filled families who practiced their faith and did not practice immorality. You say we were “good, in that we didn’t break a lot of rules,” as if that were a bad thing. You are right that it was not that no one lusted, though perhaps they lusted less due to the lack of general availability of pornography. But regardless of the reasons for behaving in a moral manner, I still think that a zero percent out of wedlock pregnancy rate is better than a 41% or 70% rate. I think that less pornography is better than more pornography. I think that less opportunity for sin is better than more opportunity for sin.
.
I agree with what you say about Scott Hahn; he is a Catholic who is on fire for Christ. So, for that matter, was Bishop Sheen, and he reached a great number of Catholics and non-Catholics in prime time. And it is noteworthy that Mr. Hahn came to the church by a study of its doctrine—something which was neglected for a period of time in the years following V-II. And it was his wife’s study of the Catholic position on contraception that convinced him of the truth of the Catholic doctrine. Evangelicals do make great Catholics.

Yes, there were Catholics who looked for the minimum in the way of Mass attendence. There still are. Some of the pews in the back still tend to empty just after communion.

Every generation of Catholics has its own challenges. But I often hear pre-Vatican II Catholics calumniated in a manner which they neither experienced nor recall, nor deserve. They are accused of being Catholic by mere habit. That was not my experience. Some were. Some are now. Some will always be. But I won’t kick anybody out of the church for lack of emotionalism, nor second guess the depth of their faith.

I have no quarrel with Vatican II. The reform was a good thing. The attempted takeover by dissident radicals was not. But the reform is now coming into its own; it has generated much good, especially in view of the orthodox Catholic media which are now available.
I don’t want to go back. Neither do I wish for previous generations of Catholics to have their faith put in doubt. To most of them, it was never in doubt. It was and is their one sure beacon.

 

[otjm]

Hmm, my recollections are of faith filled families who practiced their faith and did not practice immorality. You say we were “good, in that we didn’t break a lot of rules,” as if that were a bad thing. You are right that it was not that no one lusted, though perhaps they lusted less due to the lack of general availability of pornography. But regardless of the reasons for behaving in a moral manner, I still think that a zero percent out of wedlock pregnancy rate is better than a 41% or 70% rate. I think that less pornography is better than more pornography. I think that less opportunity for sin is better than more opportunity for sin.
.
I agree with what you say about Scott Hahn; he is a Catholic who is on fire for Christ. So, for that matter, was Bishop Sheen, and he reached a great number of Catholics and non-Catholics in prime time. And it is noteworthy that Mr. Hahn came to the church by a study of its doctrine—something which was neglected for a period of time in the years following V-II. And it was his wife’s study of the Catholic position on contraception that convinced him of the truth of the Catholic doctrine. Evangelicals do make great Catholics.

Yes, there were Catholics who looked for the minimum in the way of Mass attendence. There still are. Some of the pews in the back still tend to empty just after communion.

Every generation of Catholics has its own challenges. But I often hear pre-Vatican II Catholics calumniated in a manner which they neither experienced nor recall, nor deserve. They are accused of being Catholic by mere habit. That was not my experience. Some were. Some are now. Some will always be. But I won’t kick anybody out of the church for lack of emotionalism, nor second guess the depth of their faith.

I have no quarrel with Vatican II. The reform was a good thing. The attempted takeover by dissident radicals was not. But the reform is now coming into its own; it has generated much good, especially in view of the orthodox Catholic media which are now available.
I don’t want to go back. Neither do I wish for previous generations of Catholics to have their faith put in doubt. To most of them, it was never in doubt. It was and is their one sure beacon.

If you think that I am casting all Catholics under the bus, then you miss-read what I wrote.

but I am beyond sick and tired of the romanticizing of the 40’s and 50’s and 60’s; it was not the glorious days that too many people “recall”.

Yes, pornography was serious controlled; but it is simplistic to act as if it didn’t exist. And out of the depths of darkens that much of it was kept in, it has blown the figurative doors off. 4 generations, and we now have public librarians insisting that children cannot be prevented from accessing it. But that wasn’t a byproduct of Vatican 2.

Zero percent out of wedlock pregnancies? That absolutely did not exist; no, we did not have the levels we have now, but there weren’t homes for unwed mothers for no reason, although they may have been given other names.

Nor did the sexual revolution begin in the 60’s - it was in the 90’s, as in the 1890’s. Absolutely not full blown then, but the Lambeth Conference certainly provided a significant marker of the increase in sexual promiscuity, and that dates 1930. The explosion in the 60’s was just the openness of what was already stewing “out of sight”; and again, had nothing to do with Vatican 2, or for that matter, Humanae Vitae; the latter being published in a “shut the barn door after the horse is in the next county” timing.

I started considering seminary about the time John 23 was made Pope, and finally went to seminary in '64, and by that time I was already aware of the very prevalent attitude of minimalism and legalism. Was everybody of that mindset? Of course not. Was it prevalent? Absolutely.

The call of the Gospels, the call of Christ is radical, and that is a word that hardly conveys how much contrast it has to the day-to-day slogging that most of us do. Following Christ is a whole lot more than just “not sinning”.