Wanting to understand the pre-Vatican II Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter jp72
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
reggieM said:
Hi Brennan – thanks for your response.

…Pope Benedict has made it clear that he is working towards a fulfilment of the liturgical reform. He has been very critical of how the reform was implemented. A lawyer might look for “precedent” in the text, or “loopholes” to try to determine the meaning, or undermine the value of a text.
But again – the Catholic Church is not defined by texts alone. That is hard for lawyers (especially those taught in the Anglo system of jurisprudence) to accept. The supreme legislator, together with the Magisterium of the Church, has the authority to interpret conciliar decisions. We’ll see those interpretations worked out in the shaping of the ecclesiastical culture.
As one who has lived through the changes from the 1960s to the present day – I can now see how this “shape” is being manifested. The liturgical questions today are moving in a new direction now – one which is more positive.

Because the document “enables” something, does not mean that it hasn’t offered a recommended plan as well. Both of those matters have to be recognized.
Again, referring to “loopholes” is characterizing the documents as primarily legislative – as if legalizing is the best way to communicate the faith to people. But that is a major problem, and Pope Benedict has complained about that. The Catholic Faith should not be reduced to a “collection of legalisms”. Here’s a passage where he critiques a pre-Conciliar mindset:

Conscience and Truth
The one who spoke in this manner [that it was better for non-believers not to become Catholic because Catholicism was such a burden] was a sincere believer, and, I would say, a strict Catholic who performed his moral duty with care and conviction. But he expressed a form of experience of faith which is disquieting. Its propagation could only be fatal to the faith. **The almost traumatic aversion many have to what they hold to be “pre-conciliar” Catholicism is rooted, I am convinced, in the encounter with such a faith **seen only as encumbrance. In this regard, to be sure, some very basic questions arise. Can such a faith actually be an encounter with truth? Is the truth about God and man so sad and difficult, or does truth not lie in the overcoming of such legalism? Does it not lie in freedom? … Conscience here does not mean man’s openness to the ground of his being, the power of perception for what is highest and most essential. Rather, it appears as subjectivity’s protective shell into which man can escape and there hide from reality.

Of course the Church is indefectible and will never teach error in the matter of Faith or Morals. However, this doesn’t mean, of course, that her leaders don’t need to exercise prudence in matters such as whether or not to call an ecumenical council, how the documents are to be written, changes to the liturgy, etc. These types of decisions are not infallible (although a negative infallibility applies to Church councils).

Yes, a negative infallibility does apply to councils. In the case of Vatican II, it was an expression of the Magisterium of the Church – all of the bishops gathered together.
One can question if it was a good idea or not. One can also dislike various things about the Council or the Mass.

I’ll just offer this without wanting to argue or sound disagreeable. Most of the traditional Catholics I know would think that I’m defending some kind of liberal Catholicism. I’m aware of that and sympathetic to their concerns. In the same way that I do not think it is just or honorable to attack the Novus Ordo with sweeping generalizations, I do not think it is right or charitable to offend the concerns and arguments of traditional Catholics who hold their views sincerely and humbly.

With that said – I run the risk of falling into the latter case whenever I try to bring a different perspective to these questions.

I’ve read a lot of traditional Catholic material in my life so far – probably all of the “modern traditional Catholic critique” over the past decades, and I believed it quite firmly for a long time also. So, I am sympathetic to that view and I’m not here to knock it down or marginalize it.

So, I respect and appreciate your views – but I also do not want to be divisive.
Thanks again.
Click to expand...
Hi Reggie,

I agree with much of what you say. I think the lawyer also would recognize the point (and I would also) that where the rubber meets the road isn’t as much the wording of Sacrosanctum Concilium but how it was carried out by the liturgical commission appointed by the Pope after Vatican II. Because we can try to say all day long that the liturgy we got after Vatican II went far beyond what was mandated by Sacrosanctum Concilium (and what the Bishops expected) but what’s the point? The fact is the committee was appointed by the Pope and the New Mass was approved by him and the Bishops. So I agree that they are the ones who interpret the texts.

I think the point the lawyer was making is that even those who say the new liturgy went far beyond what SC allowed or mandated don’t really have a leg to stand on because if you actually read the document there are loopholes which did allow the committee to go as far as it did and local Bishops as well. And even if it didn’t, what can you do? The Pope and Bishops approved the New Mass so they put the official stamp on it and thus the mandate of SC was fulfilled according to them.

But if you haven’t read the article yet I’d invite you to do so:

latin-mass-society.org/ferrara.htm
 
Brennan_Doherty said:
Hi Ed,

I wouldn’t characterize laypeople as “freaking out.” But I have heard a number of stories of people leaving or just dropping out of the Church for years when the changes took effect. In other words, many voted with their feet.

Some laypeople did form organizations like Una Voce to help foster the reintroduction or spread of the Gregorian rite. I believe they, and others like them, were helpful in that they let the hierarchy know that a not insignificant number of laypeople were distressed by the changes. Of course, I’m sure quite a number of laypeople dropped out of participating in Church life without saying much of anything to anyone.

No, Vatican II has not stopped me from praying (nice snarky question, though). However, will I ever corporately be able to pray in the same manner the Saints of yesteryear did? No, not unless we get a Gregorian rite Mass that’s not out in the boondocks where I live. Will I ever get to experience the rich devotional life of the Church which was part and parcel of Church life prior to Vatican II? For the most part, no.

As other laypeople have noted it’s as if almost their entire heritage were ripped out from under them or denied them and instead we got liturgy by a committee.
Click to expand...
I sincerely apologize if that question came off as snarky. I’m sure if we were sitting across from each other, it would be better. No. No one I knew voted with their feet.

Our Christian life and community was met by the pagan evangelism and we welcomed the strangers. We did not deny them or judge them. They came as the living bad examples, in word and deed, and invited us to “try it, you’ll like it.” The legal system permitted sin on a massive scale. The Supreme Court included.

If anyone reading this wants to understand the pre-Vatican II Church, I suggest they get a copy of “The 2nd Vatican Council” published by The America Press in 1962. It lays out the problems facing the Church at the time. It contains the IMPRIMI POTEST, the NIHIL OBSTAT and IMPRIMATUR, the latter by Francis Cardinal Spellman , Archbishop of New York.

I don’t think the present Church is, in any way, preventing anyone from having a rich devotional life. The stories I read about new people converting to the faith, sometimes in countries in deep poverty and with few resources, is a contemporary witness to that.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
I sincerely apologize if that question came off as snarky. I’m sure if we were sitting across from each other, it would be better. No. No one I knew voted with their feet.

Our Christian life and community was met by the pagan evangelism and we welcomed the strangers. We did not deny them or judge them. They came as the living bad examples, in word and deed, and invited us to “try it, you’ll like it.” The legal system permitted sin on a massive scale. The Supreme Court included.

If anyone reading this wants to understand the pre-Vatican II Church, I suggest they get a copy of “The 2nd Vatican Council” published by The America Press in 1962. It lays out the problems facing the Church at the time. It contains the IMPRIMI POTEST, the NIHIL OBSTAT and IMPRIMATUR, the latter by Francis Cardinal Spellman , Archbishop of New York.

I don’t think the present Church is, in any way, preventing anyone from having a rich devotional life. The stories I read about new people converting to the faith, sometimes in countries in deep poverty and with few resources, is a contemporary witness to that.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Hi Ed,

Apology accepted. I know it’s tough to get across things like tone and inflection over the Internet.

Well, we’ll have to disagree about the rich devotional life. I wouldn’t say the Council “prevented” private devotions. However, the rich devotional life that was part and parcel of parishes prior to Vatican II certainly seemed to fall by the wayside. And of course we had the wholesale change to the liturgy and the scrapping of most of our musical heritage. If you think the changes to the liturgy didn’t help alter or impoverish the devotional life of Catholics then you might want to start another thread, because I don’t want to sidetrack this one.

I ran across a review of an interesting book called “Habits of Devotion” people might be interested in which studies the devotional life of Catholics prior to and shortly after Vatican II. Here is a quote:

“For generations, American Catholics . . . lived out their faith through countless unremarkable routines. Deep questions of theology usually meant little to them, but parishioners clung to deeply ingrained habits of devotion, both public and private. …This pattern changed drastically after Vatican II”

cornellpress.cornell.edu/cup_detail.taf?ti_id=4146
 
Hi Brennan,

I sincerely wish for more of that palpable sense of the Spirit of God living in neighborhoods across this country. I know He does. Some of those neighborhoods are still left.

I see no value in agreeing to disagree. If the Church did that, she would have abandoned interreligious dialogue years ago. 🙂

About the pre-Vatican II Church. Did anyone who did not understand what was going on go to their parish priest right after Vatican II ? Our Pastor was very accessible. We loved our priests and nuns. Reading your posts, I get this sense of fatalism. I think some of that could have been solved at the time if Catholics had simply gone to their priest, if nothing else, for guidance.

May I respectfully offer an observation? If we Catholics had been so hamstrung after Vatican II, how does anyone explain the Catholics who did hold on? I was one of them. God did not mean less to me, or the Mass.

Reading the 1970 TIME article, I have to conclude that some of those religious who left, while having the right to act, did not let God act fully. You know? It seems to me that they thought what should be happening was not happening, or that things should have stayed the same. Instead of leaving, my thought is that some missed an opportunity to help. And I mean that with deep respect for these individuals whose full circumstances cannot be fully known from one magazine article.

If I may offer an analogy about the pre-Vatican II Church. Imagine being a priest in Russia the day after the Russian Revolution.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Hi Brennan,

I sincerely wish for more of that palpable sense of the Spirit of God living in neighborhoods across this country. I know He does. Some of those neighborhoods are still left.

I see no value in agreeing to disagree. If the Church did that, she would have abandoned interreligious dialogue years ago. 🙂

About the pre-Vatican II Church. Did anyone who did not understand what was going on go to their parish priest right after Vatican II ? Our Pastor was very accessible. We loved our priests and nuns. Reading your posts, I get this sense of fatalism. I think some of that could have been solved at the time if Catholics had simply gone to their priest, if nothing else, for guidance.

May I respectfully offer an observation? If we Catholics had been so hamstrung after Vatican II, how does anyone explain the Catholics who did hold on? I was one of them. God did not mean less to me, or the Mass.

Reading the 1970 TIME article, I have to conclude that some of those religious who left, while having the right to act, did not let God act fully. You know? It seems to me that they thought what should be happening was not happening, or that things should have stayed the same. Instead of leaving, my thought is that some missed an opportunity to help. And I mean that with deep respect for these individuals whose full circumstances cannot be fully known from one magazine article.

If I may offer an analogy about the pre-Vatican II Church. Imagine being a priest in Russia the day after the Russian Revolution.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Hi Ed,

I am not “agreeing to disagree” with you. I am just disagreeing. I don’t know who did or did not go to their parish priest after Vatican II. I don’t know what good it would have done as the liturgy was already altered and the devotional life stripped in many parishes.

Sure, despite the precipitous drop in all areas of Catholic life there were Catholics who hung on. I would chalk it up in large part to the formation they got prior to Vatican II which taught them the importance of the Mass and the fact that you don’t miss it. I’ve often thought the drop in Mass attendance would have been even worse if Catholics prior to Vatican II hadn’t been taught the importance of Mass attendance.

If by your analogy of a priest in Russia the day after the Russian revolution you mean a priest after Vatican II and all the changes that took place then I think that is a very good analogy and I completely agree with it.
 
The priest after the Russian Revolution analogy was meant in the positive. All those Churches that were closed or turned into ammo dumps, and then, decades later, Christian renewal in Russia.

I do wish you well. I have not ignored the articles you’ve cited, but as an eyewitness, the fallout from the changes did not stop older people, especially women, from going to Church and saying their rosaries, for example. We were certainly taught, pre-Vatican II, about the importance of going to Mass and about Holy Days of Obligation. There was standing room only at my Church at Christmas and Easter.

The pre-Vatican II Church formed my faith and my understanding of the Church, but after, that same child-like faith continued to grow until my Confirmation and after. Only recently have I learned about other problems the Church faced over the centuries, like Arianism.

Peace and God Bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
The priest after the Russian Revolution analogy was meant in the positive. All those Churches that were closed or turned into ammo dumps, and then, decades later, Christian renewal in Russia.

I do wish you well. I have not ignored the articles you’ve cited, but as an eyewitness, the fallout from the changes did not stop older people, especially women, from going to Church and saying their rosaries, for example. We were certainly taught, pre-Vatican II, about the importance of going to Mass and about Holy Days of Obligation. There was standing room only at my Church at Christmas and Easter.

The pre-Vatican II Church formed my faith and my understanding of the Church, but after, that same child-like faith continued to grow until my Confirmation and after. Only recently have I learned about other problems the Church faced over the centuries, like Arianism.

Peace and God Bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
God bless you Ed, good talking with you.
 
=Brennan Doherty;6290037]Hi Ed,
Click to expand...
I am not “agreeing to disagree” with you. I am just disagreeing. I don’t know who did or did not go to their parish priest after Vatican II. I don’t know what good it would have done as the liturgy was already altered and the devotional life stripped in many parishes.
Click to expand...
Sure, despite the precipitous drop in all areas of Catholic life there were Catholics who hung on. I would chalk it up in large part to the formation they got prior to Vatican II which taught them the importance of the Mass and the fact that you don’t miss it. I’ve often thought the drop in Mass attendance would have been even worse if Catholics prior to Vatican II hadn’t been taught the importance of Mass attendance.
Click to expand...
If by your analogy of a priest in Russia the day after the Russian revolution you mean a priest after Vatican II and all the changes that took place then I think that is a very good analogy and I completely agree with it.
Click to expand...
***Sadly there remains a HUGE number of self professed catholics living there faith in a manner that suits there idea of what the CC ought to be. Even sader is the FACT that a GREAT many of them are Bishops, priest, religious and very progressive laity.

Putting aside the descussion of why we are where we are; it seems clear that doing the same old [NEW THINGS] that got us here, cannot even began to correct the problems of defections, desent, disobedience and the continued effort to make our CC more Protestant in worship, theology, and practice.

Until and unless Rome gets TOUGH [and yes I am well aware of there efforts to ammend, correct, change and alter curent practices] that have gone largely unnoticed and are often simply ignored. Example:"'Extrodiary" Ministers [assistant priest] can hardly be so termed when the application is everyday, nearly every Mass and nearly every parish, and Bishops and priest simply look the other way. Many actually encourage the practice. Truly confounding!

This is a powerful example of THE Problem. Clearly if one in not part of the Solution ; then one is the problem?

I have no doubt God remains in charge, and marvel at His patient endurence. Let us continue in Faitn, Hope and Love. And do what little we can to support our Pope, the Magisterium and those few priest, religious and laity; trying to live our faith as Christ desires. Much of what is taking place is in God’s hnds and beyond our control.

Love and prayers,
Pat***
 
=brennan doherty;6289692]
Click to expand...
hi cradlecath,
Click to expand...
i don’t know if you’ve read this article already, but you might find it interesting:
Click to expand...
latin-mass-society.org/ferrara.htm
Click to expand...
No, I hadn’t read that article & I ***think ***I appreciate you for providing the link. 🙂
The author agrees with me that those who compiled the documents of the council purposely left them wide open.

Many times, rather than facing the truth, I’vw told myself that it was “the spirit of vatican ii” that was at fault, the “implementation” of the documents…but I pretty much knew that it was the intent of those who wrote these to leave loopholes that allowed such experimentation as clown masses, liturgical “dancers”, pablum in lieu of sermons, etc., etc. Perhaps they didn’t think it would go so far, but they were writing a new church. It takes me back to my Grandfather’s old saying, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”./quote]
 
CradleCath said:
BTW., I’m not sure who you are directing this message to, but … It’s just plain RUDE!!!
Click to expand...
Thanks for pointing this out and I’m sorry that it came across that way. I will try to be more careful in the future.
God bless.
 
Brennan_Doherty said:
I think the point the lawyer was making is that even those who say the new liturgy went far beyond what SC allowed or mandated don’t really have a leg to stand on because if you actually read the document there are loopholes which did allow the committee to go as far as it did and local Bishops as well. And even if it didn’t, what can you do? The Pope and Bishops approved the New Mass so they put the official stamp on it and thus the mandate of SC was fulfilled according to them.
Click to expand...
Brennan,
I think you make very good points and they seem to be a legitimate and defensable way to look at the situation.
It’s true also that some may not have a leg to stand on, but it’s my concern that Mr. Ferrara thinks that winning this argument is a way to score some points or something like that – it’s what lawyers want to do in court.
But I don’t agree that he’s winning the argument, even if that was worth doing (and I don’t think that it is).
We can see, over time, that some things are allowed in the OF and some things are not. The rubrics have changed since 1969 and it’s my belief that they will continue to be refined. We can’t merely say that “the official stamp” was placed on everything that happened later either. We can decide about what the Council “allowed” by how it is interpreted later. The interpreters (the Pope and Magisterium) determine what the Council allowed by what was intended. The Council should be read “in light of the tradition” of the Church.
So, I don’t agree that looking for loopholes – as Mr. Ferrara has done – really offers any benefit. Nobody is free to interpret the Council on his own. The directives were given in a spirit of trust – with the belief that self-styled liturgists would not abuse that freedom.

We know it didn’t happen that way. For me, the bigger, more important and more relevant questions are why it happened that way.
 
I will suggest that there are certain “models” for viewing the Council and thus explaining what happened.
  1. Extreme liberal.
    In this view, the Council was a “starting point” which hasn’t gone far enough in secularizing and ridding the Church of supernatural, dogmatic, disciplinary and traditional components. The Church is still ‘hampered’ by laws that the Council didn’t change enough.
    Why did it happen? Liberals finally overcame Trent and the anti-Modernist crusade but were not courageous enough to fully succeed.
  2. Mainstream liberal (probably most popular)
    The Council brought needed reform. It did away with fasting and Latin and allowed ecumenism. It allowed any kind of “creativity” we want and has resulted in positive developments.
    Why did it happen? Pope John had an inspiration from the Spirit and he opened the windows, bringing in fresh air.
  3. Orthodox, faithful
    The Council was abused by liberals. The texts are conservative and should have been interpreted in a very limited manner (in light of tradition). Most of the reforms that followed cannot be justified by the texts.
    Why did it happen? Liberals were disobedient to the texts and pushed their agenda on the Church
  4. SSPX Traditionalist (and more extreme)
    The Council was a mistake foisted by liberals. Virtually all of it is wrong. It was unnecessary, harmful, meaningless and has shown no benefit at all.
    Why did it happen? Many possible causes:
    a. The Church was infiltrated by Communists
    b. A key reformer was a Freemason
    c. The Rhine-Liberals hijacked the Council
    d. The Council was presided over by an Anti-Pope
    e. Protestants offered advice
    f. It’s a preliminary stage of the Anti-Christ’s takeover of the Church
    … and more …
Those are some of the major “camps”. There is a lot more subtlty and mixture for many Catholics – borrowing from each of the groups to make up a composite picture.

That’s my view – I’m not fully in any of those camps.

My answer on “what happened” would be diverse and hard to pin down into one plan.
Some of the biggest influences I would cite are these:
  1. Influence of Melkite Bishops and Eastern Catholicism
  2. Influence of Cardinal John Henry Newman
  3. Influence of American political success on European consciousness
  4. Growing Ecumenical interest
Some of the oft-cited factors indicating need for reform:
  1. Legalism
  2. Clericalism
  3. Creeping Infallibility
  4. Rigidity
Extreme reaction that followed gave:
  1. Lawlessness
  2. Laicism
  3. Dissent
  4. Laxity
Correct reform should have given
  1. Less legalism, simpler norms, more freedom for variety of true, faithful response
  2. A re-energized lay apostolate, supporting (not supplanting) ordained priesthood
  3. Adherence and embrace of Magisterial teaching with freedom to explore new ideas in theological areas where permitted
  4. Greater devotion without doing only what is mandated (or going through the motions)
Massive organizational change is very difficult though.
That’s not an excuse for poor implementation – but it can help us understand.
 
I agree also with Ed West that many stayed faithful through the Council and changes.

Of those many Catholics I’ve met – faithfully attending the Novus Ordo for over 40 years now, they’re far better and more excellent Catholics than I am (and I attend the EF).
 
To reggieM -

Although precision is important regarding any issue facing the Church, I think you may be missing the big picture. Like certain martial arts, when an opponent throws a punch, the martial artist ‘helps him along’ by using his forward momentum to land him on his back.

My goal is not to be esoteric in the following statement but, I hope, to add clarity. The psychological and sociocultural landscape in the West was very respectful toward the Church prior to Vatican II. Even non-Catholics subscribed to certain rules of engagement in public. Politeness, restraint and civility were the norm. We can’t talk about the pre-Vatican II Church as only the “management” or as only about what went on inside the Church building. Jesus taught in the synagogues but spent a lot of His time among the people.

As Jesus sent His disciples into the world, so did the Church send us. And we were met by people - I was met - who were sincere, goodhearted and for the most part, lived in such a way that it was easy to think, Catholic or not, these people are reflective of our values. The same thing when I turned on the TV or the radio. What was going on outside of the Church building had relevance as well, since that is where we, as Catholics, lived out our faith.

It is very clear that the Modernists and Liberals within the Church used the momentum of Vatican II to institute their reforms. My reading on this subject shows the same people thought the reforms had not gone far enough, to suit them, and they were hoping for a Vatican III or a different management team.

It appears to me that the same mindset was involved that we are encountering now: radicals and modernists are fighting not a spiritual battle (as they see it) but a purely political one. They have goals, but these goals are not in line with what the Church teaches. At the time of Vatican II, they were clever about presenting their case, wrapping it in enough of what people wanted to hear that they were allowed a little room to maneuver. They took that inch and added a mile.

As I quoted Pope Benedict earlier: “The modernists have always known that they couldn’t win a fair fight with tradition…” It appears that certain individuals that were trusted with implementation after Vatican II created a breach. It is my thought that the prevailing atmosphere of the time caused certain among the clergy to let their guard down a bit. This, I think, was reflected by my, and other Catholics’, reaction to the hidden modenism beginning to spread during that time period in the outside world. We let our guard down.

Peace,
Ed
 
Ed,

Excellent summary and I agree.

I hope I haven’t sold-short the influence of evil forces and our Enemy. I do agree with the concerns that many have that by letting our guard down, sinful intentions by Modernists and others were hard to stop.

This brings me back to loopholes and conspiracies.

Some will suggest that a master plan by Satan, rather than attacking the Church directly (which has happened many times already), was to create weak norms which could easily be exploited by unscrupulous churchmen. Then, the faithful would not see the problem until a lot of damage was done.

I have heard some say that the elimination of the prayers after Mass (especially the St. Michael’s prayer) caused evil to spread in the Church.

I can see the logic and attractiveness of that view. It points to Satan as the author of the conspiracy with evil-doers working with him. It’s also very difficult to disprove this idea fully since it references Satanic influence which we can’t see directly.

My objection to this view is in how it understands the power of God and His direction of the Church through indefectability and protection of the Truth.

In this case, we have Satan taking the prominent role in the Church and basically doing what he wants. He inspires traitorious bishops to write documents which will damage the work of Christ later. But the problem, as I see it, is that God is rendered as very weak and virtually absent in His Church. He is not running the show, so to speak. The faithful are completely at the mercy of Satan – and the situation is hopeless. I can’t accept that.

Along with this view is that a return to the pre-Conciliar era will bring God back into the Church to start running it again. Along with this is the belief that the change of prayers and rituals has caused God to go away and if we bring them back, God will return to help His Church again.

As I pointed out before though, the documents were written while the Tridentine Mass was in effect. So, God supposedly left His Church before any changes were made.

The other problem I see with this is that we should not expect any improvement at all in the Church until the pre-Conciliar era is restated – since Satan is basically running things now.

But having lived through the craziest period of change in the 1970s, I can say fully that the situation is far better now. I look at CA and EWTN, for example as two major apostolates which have done immense good (we benefit from CAF this very day).

I find the 1994 Catechism to be a tremendous document - unmatched in the pre-Concilar era as an official statement of doctrine. Converts are entering the Church. Why doesn’t Satan stop that? (Or why doesn’t God forbid it since supposedly we don’t have the right prayers?)

I’m not trying to say that everything is fine today - or that we were totally wrong in the past.

I think the situation is complex and historians will have alot of work to sort it out in the future – but we’re still living through the flux and change so it’s hard to see fixed points.
 
edwest2 said:
To reggieM -

Have a look at previous heresies. I was listening to Catholic Radio one day and was shocked to hear about Arianism.

catholic.com/library/Great_Heresies.asp

Look at the current women priests movement. The devil knows we are his biggest enemy.

I would like to suggest the following book:

amazon.com/Vatican-II-Renewal-within-Tradition/dp/0195332679

A knowledge base needs to be built up.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Ed - thanks for that reference to the Matthew Lamb work. I had not heard of that before now.
From a reader review:
“… each chapter advocates a 'hermeneutic of contintuity,” which locates each document within the context of the previous 20 Ecumenical Councils, rather than a ‘hermeneutic of rupture,’ (cousin of hermeneutic of suspicion), which attempts to create an adversary, revolutionary relationship between Vatican II and the previous councils …"

To me, that is extremely important and beneficial. Pope Benedict has been stressing the hermeneutic of continuity. Even aside from supporting a papal initiative (which we all should support anyway), I think that is the path for us in the future to build up the Church and actually strengthen the faith within the tradition.

The ‘hermeneutic of rupture’ has been used by liberals to separate the Council from history – cutting the faithful off from tradition. Thus we have campaigns for Women Priests and Birth Control in the name of Vatican II.
 
One very big concern of the pre-Vatican II Church was Communism. Sadly, most people in the West have a caricature of Communism in their heads. But, there is solid evidence of what was going on back then today, especially in the 1950s.

By 1960, the threat of intercontinental nuclear war was real. October of 1962 saw the Cuban Missile Crisis. In 1945, a Life magazine article titled “The 36 Hour War,” already predicted the consequences. Millions dead in a very short period of time, along with nuclear fallout.

Here is an account of Communist infiltration into the Catholic Church:

fatimaperspectives.com/cs/perspective235.asp

Peace,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top