P
pnewton
Guest
I am not going to derail this thread by arguing this point, but just note this is off topic, controversial, and not something agreed upon.
- Status
L
Le_Crouton
Guest
Considering people can actually understand what’s going on in the mass and priests don’t have to learn Latin anymore that’s pretty cool
Also look at Africa they’re doing great
Also look at Africa they’re doing great
L
Le_Crouton
Guest
I don’t know about that. I mean not every priest is as gifted with the intelligence to learn such a hard language
F
fhansen
Guest
Well, I won’t argue with most of this but either way I believe the council will prove it’s value as time goes on. The Church does not have the power to change minds and hearts directly but has the duty to guide and instruct correctly. And I believe that Vat II outlines a better orientation for the Church for these times, going into the future, which will be worked out over time despite controversies, misinterpretations, and outright dismissal of it’s teachings.
Last edited:
P
prayerrider
Guest
What fruits? Apples and oranges.
J
joyfulandactive
Guest
(Name removed by moderator) thank you for the link to the site with all the Papal Encyclicals! I am very grateful for such a wonderful resource that’s easy to browse.
I was reading John XXIII 's Feb 2 1961 encyclical on the selection and training of priests and religious. He is extremely thorough and says clearly that men who break the 6th commandment and engage in sexual behavior with persons of either sex during their training should not be admitted to the priesthood. Also those who are homosexual or “pederasts” should be disallowed.
He warns of the pressures poor families put on their children to be a priest or religious to have a materially secure life and of the leaders of orders encouraging men to take vows just to get the numbers up.
This is all before Vatican II (John XX III called the council) and the Pope sees the need of a document from the very top of the church directing that only those with a true vocation should be taking vows, in fact he says clearly “quality before quantity”. The problems with (some) religious and priests are already there and the Pope is guiding the leaders who he implies are not always doing a good job of screening and choosing correctly.
Also, the fact that so many abandoned their vows in the following decades mirrors the increase in divorce and a general societal struggle with long-term commitment.
I was reading John XXIII 's Feb 2 1961 encyclical on the selection and training of priests and religious. He is extremely thorough and says clearly that men who break the 6th commandment and engage in sexual behavior with persons of either sex during their training should not be admitted to the priesthood. Also those who are homosexual or “pederasts” should be disallowed.
He warns of the pressures poor families put on their children to be a priest or religious to have a materially secure life and of the leaders of orders encouraging men to take vows just to get the numbers up.
This is all before Vatican II (John XX III called the council) and the Pope sees the need of a document from the very top of the church directing that only those with a true vocation should be taking vows, in fact he says clearly “quality before quantity”. The problems with (some) religious and priests are already there and the Pope is guiding the leaders who he implies are not always doing a good job of screening and choosing correctly.
Also, the fact that so many abandoned their vows in the following decades mirrors the increase in divorce and a general societal struggle with long-term commitment.
Last edited by a moderator:
J
joyfulandactive
Guest
In Germany there are still regular public university prep schools in every decent sized town that offer Classical Latin and Greek from the age of 10 (upper school is 10-18 in Germany). We lived there until recently so I know this to be true. You also cannot study to be a medical doctor without Latin.
O
otjm
Guest
It took approximately 100 years for the issues of Trent to be set in place, so your Post is a bit anticipatory.
The truths of the Church were not thrown into confusion because of V 2; it was because the bishops, prior to that time, had been treated for a large part as mid level managers, with the Curia ruling. When progressives took the microphone (and I would submit that was about the day Humanae Vitae was signed) matters unwound in an extremely rapid fashion,. Pope Paul was basically muted, the bishops were in confusion as to how to handle the backlash, and no one stepped into the gap. At about the same time, progressives were reshaping catechesis and again the bishops failed to respond. While the Baltimore Catechism had done grat work, there was more that needed to be done and the bishops were so far out to lunch they had no idea what was happening. And those progressives were educated before, to well before John 23 came up with his idea.
The modern world was going down that path, Council or no Council. The Council did not fail; the bishops dropped the ball. However, interestingly, Poland had a remarkably smooth transition as the bishops aggressively led. Additionally, Poland was not really a part of what was going on in western Europe and the US. They were still under the thumb of the Communists; Interestingly, the Church thrives under repression.
Liturgy: you are simply wrong about belief in the true presence. People post V 2 were not educated about “transubstantiation” but that was not part and parcel of the Church until the middle ages; and people believed then. Those practicing now believe it, even if they do not have the technical education to be able to pick out the word. I am not going to duel with you on this;Jimmy Akin has done a better job or explicating the polls. And attendance has plummeted in the Church; and parallel to it so has attendance in the mainline Christian churches. You can’t blame V 2 for that; it has other sources. Vocations to priesthood - callings to ministry in mainline churches - parallel. Same point.
Revelation: you appear to not have seen much of what has been done in Scriptural research. We have vastly more and wonderful research available; it simply was an unknown to most laity before V 2.
Once solid Universities got caught in a Federal money squeeze and were turned over to lay boards, very often to their detriment. Yes, I have had an earful about, for example, Notre Dame (as an example) and often by people who never look at the whole, but pick out the spectacular.
Hostility of other religions - would have happened whether V 2 occurred or not. And again, the bishops were at fault for not stepping up as the voice of the local shepherd.
Polls" you seem not to know how polls are set up and taken. With about 23% attending Mass weekly, the poll catches the majority who have basically walked away. V 2 never said it would make the laity more faithful - and we go back to catechesis.
The truths of the Church were not thrown into confusion because of V 2; it was because the bishops, prior to that time, had been treated for a large part as mid level managers, with the Curia ruling. When progressives took the microphone (and I would submit that was about the day Humanae Vitae was signed) matters unwound in an extremely rapid fashion,. Pope Paul was basically muted, the bishops were in confusion as to how to handle the backlash, and no one stepped into the gap. At about the same time, progressives were reshaping catechesis and again the bishops failed to respond. While the Baltimore Catechism had done grat work, there was more that needed to be done and the bishops were so far out to lunch they had no idea what was happening. And those progressives were educated before, to well before John 23 came up with his idea.
The modern world was going down that path, Council or no Council. The Council did not fail; the bishops dropped the ball. However, interestingly, Poland had a remarkably smooth transition as the bishops aggressively led. Additionally, Poland was not really a part of what was going on in western Europe and the US. They were still under the thumb of the Communists; Interestingly, the Church thrives under repression.
Liturgy: you are simply wrong about belief in the true presence. People post V 2 were not educated about “transubstantiation” but that was not part and parcel of the Church until the middle ages; and people believed then. Those practicing now believe it, even if they do not have the technical education to be able to pick out the word. I am not going to duel with you on this;Jimmy Akin has done a better job or explicating the polls. And attendance has plummeted in the Church; and parallel to it so has attendance in the mainline Christian churches. You can’t blame V 2 for that; it has other sources. Vocations to priesthood - callings to ministry in mainline churches - parallel. Same point.
Revelation: you appear to not have seen much of what has been done in Scriptural research. We have vastly more and wonderful research available; it simply was an unknown to most laity before V 2.
Once solid Universities got caught in a Federal money squeeze and were turned over to lay boards, very often to their detriment. Yes, I have had an earful about, for example, Notre Dame (as an example) and often by people who never look at the whole, but pick out the spectacular.
Hostility of other religions - would have happened whether V 2 occurred or not. And again, the bishops were at fault for not stepping up as the voice of the local shepherd.
Polls" you seem not to know how polls are set up and taken. With about 23% attending Mass weekly, the poll catches the majority who have basically walked away. V 2 never said it would make the laity more faithful - and we go back to catechesis.
O
otjm
Guest
Ecumenism: That is not the expertise of the laity, but certainly the work together for the poor is not doctrinally an abuse. The real work in Ecumenism is far above your pay grade or mine. That you may not see it does not mean it is not working.
Missions: I will just say Asia and Africa. You are wrong.
Religious: You overstate how much happened, or should I say, to how many groups. This one does not go to the bishops, as they had no oversight (and still legally do not). Those which reviewed their charisms and avoided the Progressives are still doing fine, particularly as society in general has attempted to make them irrelevant.
Communications: You seem to think the Church owned all of them, it didn’t. and those which have maintained a close relationship with the Church are still true to the Magisterium. Further, there has been, maybe not an explosion, but certainly a rapid growth in radio and television, true to the Church,
Bishops: Vatican 1 was derailed by the Franco-Prussian war and the subsequent revolt of the Papal States, and never got to the second part - the role of the bishops. Pope Pius 11th talked of reconvening it but never did. By the time John 23 was elected, there was clearly more to consider. And your comment bad mouths a lot of the current bishops who understand they are not anointed as mid level managers, with authority booted to the Curia.
Priests: guess what: those folks who went off the deep end were ordained prior to Vatican 2. that they acted like teenagers let out from under Mommy and Daddy’s thumb speaks volumes. That is not to justify them; but to paint where the problems came from.
Seminaries have been tightened up. But look at how long it took Trent to implement the changes…
And abuse: as a relative who was ordained in the 1980’ remarked to me: “Remember how many priests left shortly after Vatican 2 to get married? Well, the proportion of straights to gays changed, as the gays were not leaving to get married.” Add to that, the abusers were in large part ordained prior to Vatican 2 or shortly thereafter, before major h=changes came down to seminaries. The problem was there to begin with, and hand nothing to do with Vatican 2.
Missions: I will just say Asia and Africa. You are wrong.
Religious: You overstate how much happened, or should I say, to how many groups. This one does not go to the bishops, as they had no oversight (and still legally do not). Those which reviewed their charisms and avoided the Progressives are still doing fine, particularly as society in general has attempted to make them irrelevant.
Communications: You seem to think the Church owned all of them, it didn’t. and those which have maintained a close relationship with the Church are still true to the Magisterium. Further, there has been, maybe not an explosion, but certainly a rapid growth in radio and television, true to the Church,
Bishops: Vatican 1 was derailed by the Franco-Prussian war and the subsequent revolt of the Papal States, and never got to the second part - the role of the bishops. Pope Pius 11th talked of reconvening it but never did. By the time John 23 was elected, there was clearly more to consider. And your comment bad mouths a lot of the current bishops who understand they are not anointed as mid level managers, with authority booted to the Curia.
Priests: guess what: those folks who went off the deep end were ordained prior to Vatican 2. that they acted like teenagers let out from under Mommy and Daddy’s thumb speaks volumes. That is not to justify them; but to paint where the problems came from.
Seminaries have been tightened up. But look at how long it took Trent to implement the changes…
And abuse: as a relative who was ordained in the 1980’ remarked to me: “Remember how many priests left shortly after Vatican 2 to get married? Well, the proportion of straights to gays changed, as the gays were not leaving to get married.” Add to that, the abusers were in large part ordained prior to Vatican 2 or shortly thereafter, before major h=changes came down to seminaries. The problem was there to begin with, and hand nothing to do with Vatican 2.
E
edwest
Guest
I don’t understand this. It is a highly inaccurate picture. Potential priests who wanted to get into seminaries were turned away in the 1970s.
By 1970, sexual perverts and dissidents in the Church were pushing for “optional celibacy.” Rome did the right thing:
content.time.com
This was a further attempt to get the Church to change after Catholic Theologians took out a full page ad in the New York Times 24 hours after Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI was published (1968):
"Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.
They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”’
By 1970, sexual perverts and dissidents in the Church were pushing for “optional celibacy.” Rome did the right thing:
Religion: Priests and Nuns: Going Their Way
. . . A priest forever, according to the order of Melchisedec. —the Rite of Ordination THE Vatican last week announced that all Catholic priests would henceforth be asked to make an annual public...
This was a further attempt to get the Church to change after Catholic Theologians took out a full page ad in the New York Times 24 hours after Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI was published (1968):
"Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.
They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”’
Last edited:
E
edwest
Guest
Regarding transubstantiation. I was there, in Catholic school. We went to Mass weekly, as a class, along with Sundays. We had Religion Class. We knew what the Tabernacle was all about.
I saw the beginning of bad catechesis in the 1970s.
And Catholic Universities were not spared corruption:
I saw the beginning of bad catechesis in the 1970s.
And Catholic Universities were not spared corruption:
O
otjm
Guest
I agree with you about bad catechesis. After the Baltimore Catechism was thrown out, people did not learn about transubstantiation. However, it is not true they learned nothing about the Eucharist; thus the polls which asked that group about transubstantiation came up negative,but did not in fact show that the same people did not know Christ was present in the Eucharist.
as to “optional celibacy”: celibacy is a rule or a discipline in the Church, and the Catholic Church has had married priests since the beginning of the Church; the Eastern Rites have married priests, and the Roman rite had them up to somewhere around the 10th century. Many say “the end of celibacy” but that is not true by any stretch of the imagination. Celibacy didn’t stop in the Eastern Rites simply because some married men were ordained. And the Roman rite has a small number of married priests through Protestant ministers who have converted, and were then ordained.
Howevr, therre are other threads on the matter, and not a "frruit of Vatican 2.
as to “optional celibacy”: celibacy is a rule or a discipline in the Church, and the Catholic Church has had married priests since the beginning of the Church; the Eastern Rites have married priests, and the Roman rite had them up to somewhere around the 10th century. Many say “the end of celibacy” but that is not true by any stretch of the imagination. Celibacy didn’t stop in the Eastern Rites simply because some married men were ordained. And the Roman rite has a small number of married priests through Protestant ministers who have converted, and were then ordained.
Howevr, therre are other threads on the matter, and not a "frruit of Vatican 2.
Last edited:
J
joyfulandactive
Guest
Regarding Catholic Universities my 18 yr old daughter has applied to our local Catholic University for entry in fall 2019. She has been accepted and received an academic scholarship worth 20k per year. However, the price of attending is so expensive and we are unlikely to receive any financial aid, I also don’t find their academic standards to be very high; But more importantly the school is so liberal that I would actually prefer she does not attend. I took some classes at graduate level myself and was shocked at what we were taught at times and the attitude of many of the students (mostly baby boomers older than myself, it was the 1990s) many of whom were openly against much Catholic orthodox doctrine.
We are hoping instead that she gains entry to our local excellent public university that also has an excellent Newman Center just outside the gates. There are still plenty of Catholic colleges that are actively going to undermine a student’s faith sadly.
My husband and I met at Georgetown and in the mid 1990s the Pope visited Baltimore, not too far from D.C. However nothing on campus celebrated the Pope’s visit, there were no Papal flags or posters and we were unable to find any buses organized by Georgetown for those who wanted to attend the Papal Mass. So we just drove there and made a private visit to the event. Maybe the school did organize something but if so it was extremely hard to find the information.
We are hoping instead that she gains entry to our local excellent public university that also has an excellent Newman Center just outside the gates. There are still plenty of Catholic colleges that are actively going to undermine a student’s faith sadly.
My husband and I met at Georgetown and in the mid 1990s the Pope visited Baltimore, not too far from D.C. However nothing on campus celebrated the Pope’s visit, there were no Papal flags or posters and we were unable to find any buses organized by Georgetown for those who wanted to attend the Papal Mass. So we just drove there and made a private visit to the event. Maybe the school did organize something but if so it was extremely hard to find the information.
Last edited:
E
edwest
Guest
I was just pointing out an event that occurred after Vatican II which caused much grief. A coordinated attack occurred inside and outside the Church after Vatican II.
J
joyfulandactive
Guest
Sorry Ed I somehow missed your post. I was born in 1968, it’s shocking to know as you say how much the church had to withstand from inside as well as outside. Now we can see that Catholic organizations of any kind that do not stay true to orthodox beliefs do not grow. I can’t read the Time article as it is for subscribers, can you summarize it please?
J
joyfulandactive
Guest
Sorry to hear your time in the church was not fruitful Roman Christian. I hope God continues to bless you in Orthodoxy.
O
otjm
Guest
It might be noted that many who either left their positions without a dispensation (e.g. laicization) or were dispensed, left to get married.
- Status