D
Dee_S
Guest
You continue to erroneously attribute to me a post that belongs to Brendan 64, who has posted a reply quite some time back- see post #262
- Status
B
Brendan_64
Guest
I think you have misunderstood me. I was referring to Elizabeth’s post about what constituted a ‘Modernist’. I suggest you go back and read my post to which you refer, note the context in which it was written, and the post to which I was replying to.What has that got to do with what I teach in class? My post you refer to has got absolutely nothing to do with teaching in class.
I presume I am entitled to hold opinions on etiquette and cosmetic issues, just as any other Catholic is? Or do you think that my holding opinions on such issues negates my ability to teach the more important theological issues?
P
ProVobis
Guest
One thing I’ve learned is that when one makes comments like the one made in #246, ("
I totally agree.") then one needs to defend that position. For all we know maybe the other poster is on ignore so be prepared to take the full punch. Just sayin.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
A good explanation there. I can rest assured then that a fairly Modern Catholic (although certainly not a liberal Catholic by any means) like myself is not a ‘modernist’.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Perhaps I did misunderstand you.
So what exactly do kids in school question these days? You were the one bringing up the point that they are asking more questions than they did before Vatican II.
J
jeannetherese
Guest
There is a false dichotomy in the * either *memorizing facts or thinking argument. I doubt than many would wish to concentrate exclusively on one factor to the exclusion of the other.
I’m also noticing that this discussion is moving between countries and wondering if some of the challenges we are dealing with in Catholic formation and education might be greater challenges in one geographic location than another?
Speaking as a product of Catholic education (3 generations in my family in the western United States) my pre-VII parents recieved outstanding formation from the Sisters who taught in their Catholic School. My siblings and I , educated in the 70s and 80s, were casualties of the belief that all Catholic schools provided the same degree of formation as that of my parents.
Fortunately, we had excellent examples at home, lots of bible reading at home, and enough formation to reclaim our faith -a continuing process. We did receive good sacramental preparation in grade school, but it is frustrating to think of all of the sacrifices made to provide us with an education which was more oriented to the secular, at the expense of the faith, than my parents anticipated.
They began intervening in high school, moving some of us to other schools in pursuit of teachers who were well catechized and able to provide solid formation.
By University, they were calling other parents to find out what professors at the local Catholic University were aligning their teaching to the Magisterium-something they had assumed would be a non-issue at Catholic schools throughout our childhood.
The following generation, educated in the 90s, had schools which no longer engaged in sacramental preparation.
Efforts are currently underway in my geographic area to get local Catholic schools to reclaim their Catholic identity. We have a long way to go.
It would be really exciting to see schools providing strong catechesis and apologetics. The need to know their facts *and *to be able to defend and extend their faith. It will be helpful to have our Catholic schools prioritizing these issues, working with parents to provide sound formation.
May it be so. Amen.
P.S. As I think of the contrast between recent posts and our thread title, I wonder if the reason so many SSPX threads turn into discussions of education and catechesis might not relate to a sense that, while we do not want to endorse disobedience and pray that the SSPX will find its way home, we share concerns with the SSPX about the necessity of how best to pass on the deposit of the faith to the next generation and the methodologies which will best achieve this goal. However we choose to argue, souls are at stake, and thus the stakes are high.
I’m also noticing that this discussion is moving between countries and wondering if some of the challenges we are dealing with in Catholic formation and education might be greater challenges in one geographic location than another?
Speaking as a product of Catholic education (3 generations in my family in the western United States) my pre-VII parents recieved outstanding formation from the Sisters who taught in their Catholic School. My siblings and I , educated in the 70s and 80s, were casualties of the belief that all Catholic schools provided the same degree of formation as that of my parents.
Fortunately, we had excellent examples at home, lots of bible reading at home, and enough formation to reclaim our faith -a continuing process. We did receive good sacramental preparation in grade school, but it is frustrating to think of all of the sacrifices made to provide us with an education which was more oriented to the secular, at the expense of the faith, than my parents anticipated.
They began intervening in high school, moving some of us to other schools in pursuit of teachers who were well catechized and able to provide solid formation.
By University, they were calling other parents to find out what professors at the local Catholic University were aligning their teaching to the Magisterium-something they had assumed would be a non-issue at Catholic schools throughout our childhood.
The following generation, educated in the 90s, had schools which no longer engaged in sacramental preparation.
Efforts are currently underway in my geographic area to get local Catholic schools to reclaim their Catholic identity. We have a long way to go.
It would be really exciting to see schools providing strong catechesis and apologetics. The need to know their facts *and *to be able to defend and extend their faith. It will be helpful to have our Catholic schools prioritizing these issues, working with parents to provide sound formation.
May it be so. Amen.
P.S. As I think of the contrast between recent posts and our thread title, I wonder if the reason so many SSPX threads turn into discussions of education and catechesis might not relate to a sense that, while we do not want to endorse disobedience and pray that the SSPX will find its way home, we share concerns with the SSPX about the necessity of how best to pass on the deposit of the faith to the next generation and the methodologies which will best achieve this goal. However we choose to argue, souls are at stake, and thus the stakes are high.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
As I never taught kids before Vatican II I cannot really comment on that, all I can say is that currently, in good schools. young children are taught well and can, at a young age, explore and question basic theology very well. That, to me, is far more valuable than learning by rote.
I can’t really comment on what kids asked in class before Vatican II as I wasn’t in school then (as, I presume, is the case with most who post on here).
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Again with the false dichotomy. Those who once learned by rote also learned the basis of that theology. That’s what you and some others do not understand here.
Some of us can comment, and we’re informing you that your view of pre-V2 catechesis is inaccurate.
As to the future, all of us (including you, including me) should simply wait to see the fruits. Let’s see if the currently in-process catechesis, generally or particularly, will succeed in producing Catholics as informed as the well-informed pre-V2 Catholics were. More to the point, let’s see if whatever supposedly excellent catechesis they are receiving now will permanently guide these children now in formation. Because it’s not just intellectual, of course. It’s also spiritual. The transitional aspect is what can make the difference. Wrested from the moorings of adults, how will the next generation of Catholics resist the amazingly powerful pull and propaganda of secular media (much of which is emotional and manipulative, not rational or intellectual)? Faith is always the determiner of whether someone remains a convicted, orthodox, and informed Catholic once that Catholic is independent and heavily influenced by non-Catholics.
D
Dee_S
Guest
One thing I’ve learned is that when one makes comments like the one made in #246, ("
thanks…getting a bit too hectic for me all round:blackeye: think I’ll get back to Pope Paul VI and the SSPX…
D
Dee_S
Guest
…continuation of the Letter of Pope Paul VI to Archbishop Lefebvre in 1976.
On Our part, as We promised you, We are herewith sending you the conclusion of Our reflections.
But it remains true that some priests and members of the faithful mask with the name “Conciliar” those personal interpretations and erroneous practices that are injurious, even scandalous, and at times sacrilegious. But these abuses cannot be attributed either to the Council itself or to the reform that have legitimately issued therefrom, but rather to a lack of authentic fidelity in their regard. You want to convince the faithful that the proximate cause of the crisis is more than a wrong interpretation of the Council and that it flows from the Council itself. [emphasis added].
Moreover, you act as if you had a particular role in this regard. But the mission of discerning and remedying the abuses is first of all Ours; it is the mission of all the bishops who work together with Us. Indeed We do not cease to raise Our voice against these excesses: Our discourse to the consistory of last May 21 repeated this in clear terms. More than anyone else We hear the suffering of distressed Christians, and We respond to the cry of the faithful longing for faith and the spiritual life. This is not the place to remind you, brother, of all the acts of Our pontificate that testify to Our constant concern to ensure for the church fidelity to the true tradition, and to enable her with God’s grace to face the present and future.
Finally, your behavior is contradictory. You want, so you say, to remedy the abuses that disfigure the church; you regret that authority in the church is not sufficiently respected; you wish to safeguard authentic faith, esteem for the ministerial priesthood and fervor for the Eucharist in its sacrificial and sacramental fullness. Such zeal would, in itself, merit our encouragement, since it is a question of exigencies which, together with evangelization and the unity of Christians, remain at the heart of Our preoccupations and of Our mission.
But how can you at the same time, in order to fulfil this role, claim that you are obliged to act contrary to the recent Council in opposition to your brethren in the episcopate, to distrust the Holy See itself - which you call the "Rome of the neo-modernist and neo-Protestant tendency - and to set yourself up in open disobedience to Us? If you truly want to work “under Our authority,” as you affirm in your last private letter, it is immediately necessary to put an end to these ambiguities and contradictions.
…to be continued(perhaps). It does strike me more and more, that nothing has changed in the fundamental mentality that holds an almost paranoid distrust of the Church.
On Our part, as We promised you, We are herewith sending you the conclusion of Our reflections.
- In practice you put yourself forward as the defender and spokesman of the faithful and of priests “torn apart by what is happening in the church,” thus giving the sad impression that the Catholic faith and the essential values of tradition are not sufficiently respected and lived in a portion of the people of God, at least in certain countries. **But in your interpretations of the facts and in the particular role that you assign yourself, as well as in the way in which you accomplish this role, there is something that misleads the people of God and deceives souls of good will who are justly desirous of fidelity and of spiritual and apostolic progress. **
But it remains true that some priests and members of the faithful mask with the name “Conciliar” those personal interpretations and erroneous practices that are injurious, even scandalous, and at times sacrilegious. But these abuses cannot be attributed either to the Council itself or to the reform that have legitimately issued therefrom, but rather to a lack of authentic fidelity in their regard. You want to convince the faithful that the proximate cause of the crisis is more than a wrong interpretation of the Council and that it flows from the Council itself. [emphasis added].
Moreover, you act as if you had a particular role in this regard. But the mission of discerning and remedying the abuses is first of all Ours; it is the mission of all the bishops who work together with Us. Indeed We do not cease to raise Our voice against these excesses: Our discourse to the consistory of last May 21 repeated this in clear terms. More than anyone else We hear the suffering of distressed Christians, and We respond to the cry of the faithful longing for faith and the spiritual life. This is not the place to remind you, brother, of all the acts of Our pontificate that testify to Our constant concern to ensure for the church fidelity to the true tradition, and to enable her with God’s grace to face the present and future.
Finally, your behavior is contradictory. You want, so you say, to remedy the abuses that disfigure the church; you regret that authority in the church is not sufficiently respected; you wish to safeguard authentic faith, esteem for the ministerial priesthood and fervor for the Eucharist in its sacrificial and sacramental fullness. Such zeal would, in itself, merit our encouragement, since it is a question of exigencies which, together with evangelization and the unity of Christians, remain at the heart of Our preoccupations and of Our mission.
But how can you at the same time, in order to fulfil this role, claim that you are obliged to act contrary to the recent Council in opposition to your brethren in the episcopate, to distrust the Holy See itself - which you call the "Rome of the neo-modernist and neo-Protestant tendency - and to set yourself up in open disobedience to Us? If you truly want to work “under Our authority,” as you affirm in your last private letter, it is immediately necessary to put an end to these ambiguities and contradictions.
…to be continued
(perhaps). It does strike me more and more, that nothing has changed in the fundamental mentality that holds an almost paranoid distrust of the Church.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Well said as always, Elizabeth. Are we seeing something akin to what happened in the Anglican Church? Their splintering, although it did involve some liturgical issues (changing to the 1979 BCP, for example) was really precipitated by the ordination of women, first as priests, now as bishops. The splits have been further accelerated by the Episcopal Church’s decision to sanction homosexual relationships, a move that many predict will occur within the Church of England as well, perhaps under the current Archbishop of Canterbury… There are still some traditional Anglican churches, but these are not part of the greater Anglican Communion, headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury; they are somewhat analogous to our own SSPX. Of course, Pope Francis has reiterated that female ordination is not open to discussion, even though polls show a majority of Catholics support it. According to polls more than half of the Catholics in America support same sex “marriage” as well. These figures are likely to increase because, as you imply, many if not most Catholics think that the Church needs to “change with the times.”
B
Brendan_64
Guest
So you were there were you, and of an age at the time to be able to comment on the value of the Catechesis you recieved at the time. And I haven’t actually commented directly on pre-Vatican II catechesis, just staing my view that catechesis today is decent in good schools, and that discussion and exploration of ideas is far more valuable than learning by rote and being able to rattle of lines from the Catechism.
And of course good old-fashioned 1950’s catechesis would protect the kids of today from the pull of the secular world that is attacking us on all fronts?
And to have true Faith I suppose you have to be a supporter of pre-Vatican II ways of doing things? Did the Faith of the Church diminish as a result of Vatican II? That would be one heck of an accusation to make against the Holy Spirit considering the infallible nature of the Council.
S
Saints_Alive
Guest
Ironic, those facts are. On a thread dedicated to pointing out the errors of a Society of clergy.
It has to be money driven. Why else would the Bishops of this country watch the meltdown ? As long as the dissident flock puts money in the kitty, all is well.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Again with the false dichotomy. Several people have corrected you on this, and I’m going to keep calling you on it as often as you falsely state it.
Pre-V2 Catholics did both: memorize the key facts of the faith and knew how to explain them. BOTH were presented to them, and catechists (normally those were trained priests or sisters, in communion with Rome, not off the rails) verified that understanding. They verified it in a variety of ways and over time.
If you use this kind of “logic” (unconnected concepts) to teach those in your care, I question your assertions of how well you are teaching them. There is no logic in that above rhetorical question. It’s a false premise, which I did not introduce, but which you did, perhaps as a distraction. As I said in my most recent post, it is not the intellectual (ie., catechesis) which protected then or which protects now or in the future. It is FAITH. Raw faith, that theological virtue which pre-V2 Catholics were counseled to pray for daily. The children of the future will not be protected by catechesis alone. They will be protected by the depth and the commitment of their individual faith, and their frequent recourse to prayer for the protection of that faith.
Not only did I not say any of that, I said quite the opposite, in a recent post of mine, which you previously acknowledged.
S
Saints_Alive
Guest
The Faith depends on everything before it according to BXVI.
"… But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life."
/discussion
P
ProVobis
Guest
And that’s something we can memorize.
S
Saints_Alive
Guest
B
Brendan_64
Guest
Oh several people have already corrected me on this have they? Who? You’re the only one I can see attempting to do that. And you seem to ignore the fact that I am not commenting on pre-Vatican II catechesis, I am merely commenting that there is little value in learning lines of the Catechism by rote, particularly in an age when one can pull up a line of Catechism within seconds on a smartphone. But don’t let that stop you attacking me for it, eh?
And you were there where you, learning your Catechism pre-Vatican II? You can personally testify to it’s value?
Something which I suppose post-Vatican II Catholics (including yourself I presume) are seriously lacking?
O
otjm
Guest
Then I do not understand what you are driving at. If you are saying that no bishops speak to any liturgical abuses, it would appear you are not listening to the bishops.
4 bishops out of 5000+ and Rome has to explain things? Don’t think os. Further, if the bishops wanted an explanation they could ask (and I suspect they have had their explanations). The bottom line is that Rome has spoken; to that they owe obedience, and they refuse - whether or not they understand the explanation, or even if there is no explanation. This is not something new; it has been on-going since Paul 6th.
The SSPX already know that - they can read the rules as well as anybody else; furthermore, those are not the issue with the SSPX. The FFSP don’t have a problem figuring that out.
Since it is only a problem with a very small minority, it is far more likely no one is tiptoeing anywhere.
To begin with, you are making a post hoc, ergo propter hoc statement. Vocations have been expanding rapidly in third world countries; gosh, since they have the Vatican 2 documents and have to implement them, could it just possibly be due to other sources?
P
ProVobis
Guest
But the timing is right this time.Lord knows I’ve posted it enough times
- Status