It wreaks of something. But I can’t agree that the tradition/Tradition of the past centuries somehow weren’t working suddenly. In fact (please note that I’m NOT calling you arrogant), this kind of view reflects an arrogance of sorts. We naively believe that in the middle of the 20th-century humans faced unsurpassed challenges and new viewpoints that demanded a new liturgical approach from the Church. This reveals ignorance of past eras, though.Loud-living-dogma:
The reality is that the ‘tradition’ that had served Catholic faith got competition from new ideologies that had emerged. An example of that was when artificial contraception techniques debuted on the market, the baby boomer Catholics who were raised in the pre VII Church, adopted it in droves. It revealed a deficiency in what we might call Catholic theology of the body. As the post war world evolved, it exposed a sort of shallowness in the catechises that needed to be addressed urgently.
The whole transformation of the Church since then wreaks of the work of the Holy Spirit to preserve Truth.
I think you’re conflating the liturgical reforms with one or more of the other areas of emphasis during the council such as ecumenism.
First, let me say that I am very happy that you and other protestants have come home. That’s an incredible blessing! Second, I agree we are safe, though likely not for the same reasons. I believe Christ’s promise to never leave us. Third, and here’s where things get sticky, though I’m glad you as a protestant found the OF to your liking when you joined the Church, anyone who rejected the Church in the past because they couldn’t handle Latin or priests ad orientem, or communion on the tongue was rejecting Christ’s bride for personal preferences.Loud-living-dogma:
“Something must have happened…”
I think that what happened was that God the Holy Spirit led Pope Saint John XXIII to convene a Second Vatican Council, and God the Holy Spirit led all the other bishops, and eventually Pope Paul VI, to “open the windows of the Church” and make changes that God in His infinite and inscrutable wisdom that is not human wisdom knew were absolutely necessary for Holy Mother Church.
Of course frail humans misinterpreted God’s leading in some of the everyday details, but God, again in His wisdom, led them safely into their “new harbor” and watched over the entire Council and guarded the proceedings so that there would be no serious errors that would prevent the Gospel from being heard and accepted.
I think we all need to trust that God knew what He was doing, and still knows what He is doing, and that He is still on the throne leading His Church, and that the Blessed Virgin Mary, our Mother, is praying constantly that Her Son will not allow anything to happen through our human ignorance that would endanger our souls.
We are safe, friends.
And many former Protestants like myself and my husband thank God everyday that we were able to understand the first Mass we attended.
BTW, just an hour ago, my husband and I had supper with his parents (elderly!), and my father-in-law, who has been coming to our Catholic Bible studies for years since we converted, told us that he wants to talk to our priest because he needs someone to be a spiritual adviser because his Methodist church and pastor has gone all wrong. So I’m pretty happy right now that the Lord Jesus is still working through Holy Mother Church to bring Protestants “home to Rome,” in spite of the priest facing the people and the contemporary music and the prayers in the vernacular instead of Latin, and all the rest of the “banality,.”
(Please note that I ask the following as a Holocaust scholar who is all too well acquainted with supersessionist religious thinking): 1962 really represented a new reality re: various religions? And how exactly have the Church’s ecumenical efforts worked out for Her since then?gracepoole:
I think you’re conflating the liturgical reforms with one or more of the other areas of emphasis during the council such as ecumenism.
Then I suppose you should know the answer to the first question.
Again, though, this seems to ignore the stark realities of past eras.
Just so I can gauge your perspective, can you read St John XXIII’s Opening address at VII which is what I reference, and indicate if you believe it to be an arrogant position as well. I’m just not sure how far people are invested in denouncing the new reforms.Emeraldlady:
It wreaks of something. But I can’t agree that the tradition/Tradition of the past centuries somehow weren’t working suddenly. In fact (please note that I’m NOT calling you arrogant), this kind of view reflects an arrogance of sorts. We naively believe that in the middle of the 20th-century humans faced unsurpassed challenges and new viewpoints that demanded a new liturgical approach from the Church. This reveals ignorance of past eras, though.Loud-living-dogma:
The reality is that the ‘tradition’ that had served Catholic faith got competition from new ideologies that had emerged. An example of that was when artificial contraception techniques debuted on the market, the baby boomer Catholics who were raised in the pre VII Church, adopted it in droves. It revealed a deficiency in what we might call Catholic theology of the body. As the post war world evolved, it exposed a sort of shallowness in the catechises that needed to be addressed urgently.
The whole transformation of the Church since then wreaks of the work of the Holy Spirit to preserve Truth.
It’s a good thing John XXlll didn’t ignore the stark reality of his era.
Too bad Clement VII did, right?gracepoole:
It’s a good thing John XXlll didn’t ignore the stark reality of his era.