Why were/are post VII abuses tolerated?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jacafamala
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I like what the Pope had to say in France on this type of thing.
His warning about idols is really good.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=268003

Note the last paragraph on the posted part.
I really thank God for this Papa. I saw part of the Mass at Lourdes on television late last night. He’s indeed trying to bring back our Catholic traditions.🙂 By making the pilgrimage to Lourdes and offering that beautiful Mass, I think that the Holy Father was reminding Europe of her dignity.
 
The answer is actually quite simple. The lunatics are running the asylums of too many of the Churches local. And there are not enough brave men willing to do anything about it. If in fact they’ve been catechized well enough to know what’s wrong.
By brave men, do you mean the lay, or are you referring to the Bishops?
 
Pro Domina;The Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness are not just random people out there without guidance or leadership.
The Sons of the Light have Our Lord Jesus Christ as Our King, visibly represented by His Church.
Now the Church is an institution that it is visible and organized.
It has its institutions, rules and goals.
But to think that the Sons of Darkness are not organized into visible (even though not so much seen) institutes is an error most believe. Just like the Church has Her agents (the hiearchy, institutes and the lay) the Devil has his.
In the Middle Ages you had many saints in just one many times. They promoted the Kingdom of God, they worked for the ultimate goals of giving glory to God and having all men saved.
But at the same time, the Devil is no fool. He knows that he needs people to fight for his goals.
In everytime the agents have been different.
Pagan priests who offered their satanical sacrifices and even the very priests of the Old Testament were traitors who sacrificed to the devil in the very temple. Thus you have the orgins of the very ones who orchestrated the horrible crime of deicide.
But it does not end there. The Middle Ages collapsing into the Rennesaince is no randam event. The Devil and his followers slowly seeped into those who should be Champions for Christ, the Clergy and Nobility.
The Nobility and Clergy started with a little more romantizicism in the arts, the nobility slowly stopped defending the Church and Her libery and became more like merchants and hedonists, and the Clergy started to abandon the Spiritual realm and dedicated itself more and more the the Temporal realm.
But this happens because the good turns bad.
So 500 years later, Evil greatly outnumbers the Good.
And the Church is infiltrated more then ever.
So when the opertunity comes, Evil makes a French Revolution in the Church.
Hi Pro Domina, Who do you think are the agents behind our current problems?
But, since the Church is not like Evil, which depends entirely on natural and preternatural abilities, but rather supernatural and is immortal, She survives and will surely not only survive, but triumph over evil like She never shone before.
And there are those who are aware of this and fight for God and His Church, and patiently await God’s intervention in a hopeless world.
Thanks, this is what I have to keep reminding myself of.
This is why Fatima is so important. Because in Fatima Our Lady tells us that terrible things will happen and that the Church will suffer but at the end "My Immaculate Heart will triumph.
Yes, yes!🙂
 
ProVobis;I think many of these people do know not to receive. Many chew gum or eat candy before Communion. But there seems to be this overcoming pressure for everyone who attends to receive so we follow the path of least resistance. It’s the “When in Rome, do as the Romans do” thinking.
And it happens in the EF as well as the OF.
Ah, but if they continue to assist at the EF, I think they find out quickly enough that they need to get to Confession.
I think a lot of abuses had already crept into the liturgy even before VII. Maybe one of the reasons of holding Vatican II was to discuss how much to tolerate, in not so many words?
I’m not sure about this. Like what, for example?
One tiny little bit of mention of vernacular in the documents and Latin was virtually completely wiped out in the liturgy. Extend that thought to some of the other topics covered in the VII documents and what you see today is the result.
Yes. How did that happen?
But are these really abuses anymore? Habits are hard to break. Toleration almost always leads into acceptance which then mostly leads into “norms.”
Yes, there are abuses. Many abuses. The structure of the Church is primarily a hierarchy, founded by Christ, and that authority needs to be respected.
 
oneGODoneCHURCH;I see it as a two fold problem. many of the Priest and Bishops received incorrect or misleading instruction on VII. There for many changes were made in the name as mandated by the council that were not.
The Priests and Bishops received false instruction by whom, I wonder?
the laity not knowing any difference at the time went along with them. We we asked the Priest in our local Parish we were told that these changes were not real change but corrections to help bring the Mass more to the People and bring us into more participation in the worship of God. And we just nodded our heads and said ok Father And allowed ti to continue.
Yes, many people simply trusted Father because in the past, Father really was always right in most cases.
Many of us had way to busy lives to take a everyday interaction in our parish and those that were in many case were full of the spirit of the 60’s and 70’s and the free love and there is no right and wrong just different ways of expression. And the Priest in many case there being only one or two at a parish gave in instead of fighting them and correcting them as they were not giving a lot of support form their bishops.
The families were becoming separated by the increase in divorce and children were not getting religious teaching at home like they did as mom or did either stopped going to church or started going to a protestant church.
It’s the same thing today, I’m here to tell you. Most families are far too busy to even care. In fact, most people sitting in the pew don’t even know what the problems are. People are busy running after all sorts of things, or else they’re just trying to put food on the table.
Do you see that the snow ball that began to grow.
Somewhat, but it still blows my mind anyway.
one thing built upon another.
Yes
But I do see signs that the snow ball reached the bottom of the hill and the sun is coming out and maybe we are starting to move back in the other directions again.
Well, lets hope. But people are so materialistic these days. I’m afraid it may seem arcane or else plain old fashioned for people to worry about something illusive as the state of their souls.
 
One of the causes of abuse, or rebellion against Church teaching is precedent. Vatican II may have little or nothing to do with the precedent that was made in disobedience and response to Church teaching that opened the floodgates to a series of controversies that followed it.

Pope Paul VI confirmed ancient Church teaching on the immorality of artificial contraception with his encyclical Humane Vitae. The reponse to it among many of the clergy was open rebellion.

Nothing was done to enforce Church discipline. Paul VI was a weak pope, or maybe a better term is weak leader and the Church suffered. During his tenure, for example, thousands of priests decided that they would abandon their solemn vows for different reasons, but mainly to marry. Pope Paul received their requests for laicization and rubber stamped them. This was a very sad time. Nothing was done to build the Church and stop the collapse.

John Paul II stopped this practice immediately.

The authority of the Church was compromised and greatly weakened by so many priests and bishops who openly defied and rejected the moral law taught by the Church. They were allowed to do this with impunity and that established a precedent.

When one calf strays it is easy to get it back into the herd. It is much more difficult to stop a stampede. Paul VI was completely overwhelmed and personally incapable of dealing with this avalanche of rebellion.

With the flames of dissent fanned and having no fire department those who wished to feed the fires of rebellion were emboldened everywhere.

In this climate vocations declined in quantity and quality. Spiritual formation and discipline suffered and the outcome was the abuse scandals.

The crises are far from over, but there are many signs of hope that things are improving. God will not abandon His Church.
 
=Jacafamala;4175940]The Priests and Bishops received false instruction by whom, I wonder?
Having read your response I think a better wording of my statement would have been that they misunderstood (some on purpose) the instruction that were given. an one misstep lead to another.
Yes, many people simply trusted Father because in the past, Father really was always right in most cases.
which is always the case I really feel that it is our duty to know the true teaching of the Church and Bible and when things happen that go against them to call our priest to task on them.
It’s the same thing today, I’m here to tell you. Most families are far too busy to even care. In fact, most people sitting in the pew don’t even know what the problems are. People are busy running after all sorts of things, or else they’re just trying to put food on the table.
very true
Somewhat, but it still blows my mind anyway.
mine as well
Well, lets hope. But people are so materialistic these days. I’m afraid it may seem arcane or else plain old fashioned for people to worry about something illusive as the state of their souls.
I think that has been a problem for man since the first retail business opened.
 
Having lived through the time period in question, and through the faithful witness of others who were there, here is what happened.

1960 The Birth Control Pill.

1968 Humanae Vitae. Open rebellion by priests and even nuns. Hippies, assisted by the media, began to release their poison. Their anti-Vietnam War message was good, the rest was bad. “Off the pigs!” (Kill the police!) “Down with the Establishment!” (Be like us! Free!) “Free love!” (Sex with anyone - marriage not necessary.) "Don’t trust anyone over 30! (Mom, dad, priests, nuns. They don’t know anything.) “We will build a Woodstock Nation!” (A new social order is coming and ‘old folks’ couldn’t possibly understand us young, Hippie, radicals.)

Some Catholics, falsely thinking that there was something of value to the Hippies’ message, began to imitate them.

Another factor is this: If Catholics were told by their Pope that artificial birth control was unacceptable and they believed it, you’re losing a big market for your pills. I’ve heard priests on the radio saying that they were told to advise parishioners to just follow their consciences, not the difficult rules of Humanae Vitae. There was also a post here not long go about a priest who was in a meeting where other priests tried to coerce him into signing a statement against Humanae Vitae in 1968. Priests in seminaries in the 1970s were not given clear teaching about artificial birth control.

1973 Abortion legalized after heart rending stories of women dying after getting back alley abortions, and that “abortion is the most difficult decision a woman will make and is between her and her God.” A little later, abortion on demand made the God part irrelevant.

1973 The Catholic Legion of Decency which encouraged Hollywood to use its creative energies in an uplifting and positive way, closes its doors. Hollywood is now free to up the skin, sex and profanity level in movies gradually.

1975 So-called Adult Bookstores selling porn appear all over the country.

1978 The National Organization of Women drives a wedge of fear, suspicion and mistrust between men and women. This creates fertile ground for the marketing of another product…

1980s I opened the newspaper and saw lots of ads from lawyers for No-Fault Divorce - "No kids? 75$ and you’re out! Call 800-DIVORCE.

Porn appears on cable and in Motels. Sue Ellen on Dallas drinking liquor straight out of the bottle while driving.

1990s Porn appears on the internet, profanity and partial nudity on network TV. Did anyone notice that stores are no longer closed on Sunday? Malls are the new places of worship. As mall parking lots fill up, Church parking lots do not.

2000s Christians, along with priests and the Church, are beginning to realize what happened and are turning things around. Most TV programs are immoral and dysfunctional. Dinner and a movie? In movies, romance does not occur - now two people fornicate and then become a couple. Comedy? profanity and endless sex jokes.

No, the Church knew what would happen if Catholics accepted artificial birth control. Pope Paul VI warned us about the consequences. The love songs of the 1960s gave way to “Sexual Healing” and John Lennon went from I Want to Hold Your Hand to Why Don’t We Do It In The Road? The movie Deep Throat (1970s) was marketed not as an “art house” (meaning porn) movie but as a legitimate film.

The Body of Christ was slowly, gradually poisoned. Too many Catholics saw the bad example of others around them and decided, You know, I might be happier if I just do what everybody else is doing.

The Church did not stop being the Church or teaching the truth. But critics of the Church kept saying (including on this forum): See, see, Catholics don’t want to follow Church teaching, so why doesn’t the Church let them use condoms and the Pill? Huh?

God does not want to force us to love Him, neither does the Church. I encourage everyone reading this to consider the fruit of the past 40 years. Is it good or bad? And then to go back to the Church and live in obedience. Avoid the distractions of the media. Turn off the TV - get to know your family. Pick up a Catechism. Read your Bible. It’s all still there.

God bless,
Ed
 
BrotherRolph,

I certainly do not question your experience.

However, could you point to the Conciliar or Magisterial Documents which approved, encouraged or even condoned the ‘upheavals’ you experienced?

My concern is to whom you submitted–the Church or to the modernists.
I too am interested in a reply here.

granfather and edwest. Thanks. Spot on.
 
I find these two statements contradictory - we can’t take up the job of the Magisterium. Absolutely not, for one thing I’m not male, for another I’m not theologically trained and do not have a divinity degree, I don’t have the time to do the research, thinking, discussion and decision making and I don’t have the vocation or the authority. If I don’t have these things then I could never presume to disagree with the Magisterium. I would not disagree with our Pope, why would I disagree with his teaching body?

Am I different from other lay faithful somehow? Are there lay faithful who have all of those things? Why I should I trust the ‘lay faithful’ and not the hierarchy of the Church?

Certainly we should speak up when we see practice and teaching in our own parishes or in a priest or in each other that is not true to our faith, but teach the Magisterium - I’ll let someone else step up for that one.
God Bless
Karen
I’m not saying we can disobey when necessary when it pertains to dogma but in other decisions of the Ordinary Magisterium, such as disciplines. The New Mass would be one such example.

The text below is from Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand, a very orthodox theologian (who is no longer living) from his work “The Charitable Anathema” (I believe). He wrote:

"Our belief in the teachings of the Church de fide must be an absolute and unconditional one, but we should not imagine that our fidelity to the Church’s theoretical authority is satisfied merely by acceptance of ex cathedra pronouncements. We also must adhere wholeheartedly to teachings of the Church in matters of morality, even if they are not defined ex cathedra. The teaching of the encyclical Humanae Vitae, for example, is binding because its content has always been part of the teaching of the Church; in it we are confronted with the theoretical authority of the Church embodied in the tradition of the ordinary magisterium. It is not a mere practical commandment of the Church, like the commandment to go to church on Sunday. It is a statement about a moral fact; that is, it states a truth: that birth control is sinful. It is forbidden not because of the Pope’s policy, but because the theoretical authority of the Church declares its sinfulness. Here, as in all cases of a teaching of the theoretical authority, the old maxim applies: Roma locuta: causa finita.

The situation is different when positive commandments of the Church, practical decisions, are at stake. Here we are not faced with the infallible Church. While we must obey such decisions and submit to them in reverence and deep respect, we need not consider them felicitous or prudent. Here the maxim Roma locuta: causa finita does not apply. If we are convinced that any practical change or decision is objectively unfortunate, noxious, compromising, imprudent, or unjust, we are permitted to pray that it may be revoked, to write in a respectful manner about the topic, to direct petitions for a change of it to the Holy Father–to attempt, in a variety of ways, to influence a reversal of the decision.

…The point, of course, is that obedience to the practical disciplinary decisions of the pope does not always imply approval of them. When such a decision has the character of compromise or is the result of pressure or the weakness of the individual person of the pope, we cannot and should not say: Roma locuta: causa finita. That is, we cannot see in it the will of God; we must recognize that God only permits it, just as He has permitted the unworthiness or weakness of several popes in the history of the Church.

…Nor can I conceal–and here we are returning to the point from which we started–the fact that the new Missale Romanum seems to me an incomparably greater mistake than that Concordat [with Hitler’s Germany]. I share the view of the great, venerable Cardinal Ottoviani–a true rock of orthodoxy–and of the group of Roman theologians who authored a critical study of the “new” Mass for Cardinal Ottoviani, that this liturgical innovation implies a contrast, at least by omission, with the de fide canons of the Council of Trent about the Mass."

Pax Christi tecum.
 
The situation is different when positive commandments of the Church, practical decisions, are at stake. Here we are not faced with the infallible Church. While we must obey such decisions and submit to them in reverence and deep respect, we need not consider them felicitous or prudent. Here the maxim Roma locuta: causa finita does not apply. If we are convinced that any practical change or decision is objectively unfortunate, noxious, compromising, imprudent, or unjust, we are permitted to pray that it may be revoked, to write in a respectful manner about the topic, to direct petitions for a change of it to the Holy Father–to attempt, in a variety of ways, to influence a reversal of the decision.

…The point, of course, is that obedience to the practical disciplinary decisions of the pope does not always imply approval of them. When such a decision has the character of compromise or is the result of pressure or the weakness of the individual person of the pope, we cannot and should not say: Roma locuta: causa finita. That is, we cannot see in it the will of God; we must recognize that God only permits it, just as He has permitted the unworthiness or weakness of several popes in the history of the Church. .
Now I understand and agree.
…Nor can I conceal–and here we are returning to the point from which we started–the fact that the new Missale Romanum seems to me an incomparably greater mistake than that Concordat [with Hitler’s Germany]. .
Ouch.

Do you mean that it has the potential for more and longer lasting damage to the Church?

God Bless
 
…Nor can I conceal–and here we are returning to the point from which we started–the fact that the new Missale Romanum seems to me an incomparably greater mistake than that Concordat [with Hitler’s Germany]. I share the view of the great, venerable Cardinal Ottoviani–a true rock of orthodoxy–and of the group of Roman theologians who authored a critical study of the “new” Mass for Cardinal Ottoviani, that this liturgical innovation implies a contrast, at least by omission, with the de fide canons of the Council of Trent about the Mass."
As wonderful as von Hildebrand was, time has proven this one point to be incorrect. Pope Pius XII did everything he could to save as many Jews as possible and a big part of that involved hiding them and not getting Hilter riled up.

Not to get too far off track, but here you go:
amazon.com/review/product/0809140322/ref=cm_cr_pr_fltrmsg
 
Sometimes it helps to have a different perspective. The quesiton by the OP would seem to indicate that the poster has a rather simple view of the Church, and one that is shared by many people.

There is something like 1 billion Catholics in the world (it helps, on occasion, to realize that the Church has to shepard a few more people than we realize).

So what does 1 billion people mean? Try this: if there were 10,000 cardinals, bishops and clergy in all the dicasteries in Rome, they would each be “responsible” for 100,000 people. And that presumes that those in the dicasteries are actually responsible for those people; many, if not most of the dicasteries are busy about many things other than what someone - a priest, a bishop, a parish - is doing or not doing.

The pope - this one or the previous one - meets with a bishop about once every 5 years; the time is limited (the pope meets them in groups, and his time with any one of them may be limited to an hour individually), and he won’t generally be meeting with that bishop again for another 5 years.

The pope does not hear each and every complaint that heads to Rome; I would doubt that he hears about 10% of the complaints.

The Church is not set up on a business model; the pope is not the CEO, with the bishops as mid-level department managers. The pope may well be “where the buck stops”, but most “bucks” don’t ever get to his “desk”. Most of it ends up in a dicastery; and they can only physically handle about so much - remember the ten thousand to 100,000 figure above? Well, there are not 10,000 members in the dicastery which would deal with liturgical abuses. There aren’t 1,000 (which would mean 1,000,000,000 they would be resposnible for…).

Further, we may be in the age of instant messaging; but that does not mean that Rome gets on the internet and burns off an email to a bishop every time someone complains about something the bishop has or has not done, or let or didn’t let some priest do…

Everyone - priests, bishops, cardinals, the pope - are busy, and most of them are busy every day, and with matters that often have nothing whatsoever to do with how Mass was said. And most of them have more matters than can be handled in the time that we as mere mortals are allotted in a day, which means that matters go through a constant triage of what crisis is currently in most need of attention.

The net result is that most of what goes on in any parish is not even noticed by the bishop, and literally almost none of it ever gets the attention of Rome. For that matter, most of what goes on in a diocese is not noticed by Rome. Major issues of long standing time - take for example the issue of liberation theology which has been rampant in much of South and Central America - goes on for a number of years before Rome rally gets focused on it; it then goes on for a good period of time before Rome makes much response. And the short of it is that Rome rarely ever makes a fast decsion, nor does it take a short route to resolving the issue; not now, and not really within the entire history of the Church. Issues in the earliest Church (you can read about them in the Acts of the Apostles) took a long time to solve, and the Church wasn’t a whole lot larger in terms of total Catholics than what we have today in a large diocese.

Take another relatively minor issue in rubrics - holding hands during the Our Father. That started over 40 years ago; there should be little doubt that Rome had not heard of it by the first time they re-wrote the GIRM - nothing happened. They re-wrote the GIRm a second time and there still has been nothing out of Rome about it. They appear to have bigger fish to fry.

There is a lot of frustration by a number of people of things which may be wrong. The Church is huge, and many of the things people complain about are often not even really noticed by Rome; and when they are, rome may make a response and then move on to other matters (meaning that the issue may not be resolved at all).

For all the claims of Modernism (most of which have nothing to do with Modernism) being the cause of everything that is wrong or is perceived to be wrong, most of it has more to do with the size of the church, the constant flow of issues the Church has to deal with, and the overall way that the Church deals with issues.
 
It is shocking to discover how people really think that all the changes in the Mass during and after VII were begun or initiated by the Magisterium. This is not true. They were hatched in disobedience and a failure to obey the Church. Communion in the hand was just done, imposed on the faithful by radical/liberal priests. The magisterium told these priests to stop, but they would not. The practice continued and spread, till it was became the virtual “norm”. The Church then had to recognize and give legal legitimacy to the abuse. Then the process would continue in the same fashion with just about all the Protestant practices we now see as “normal” in the new mass", i.e., Mass said versus populum, all vernacular Masses, altar girls, the gutting of our Churches, etc.
The Magisterium had to “legalize” the innovation or the disobedience. The Magisterium made an abuse legitimate because it had no power to do other wise; priests and many bishops would not obey. So, people, don’t tell me, “the Magisterium wanted these things”, that is just plain
wrong
.
They were born in disobedience and Modernism, and then they were made “a legal option” because of the Magisterium’s inability to stop it.:cool:
What exactly what are the Archbishops/Bishops/Priests, free to preach or teach? Whose authority are they under? When they teach incorrectly, who chastises them, or corrects them? In my opinion there has been a lot of incorrect teaching, or ignoring of some of the correct teachings by a number of the Clergy which has been ignored.

The magisterium told these priests to stop, but they would not. The practice continued and spread, till it was became the virtual “norm”. The Church then had to recognize and give legal legitimacy to the abuse. Then the process would continue in the same fashion with just about all the Protestant practices we now see as “normal” in the new mass"] Please give me several examples of this, as I don’t recognize any Protestant practices in Masses of the vernacular?

This sounds like the United States legalizing a law, because if they didn’t everyone would leave, or they wouldn’t vote for the politician unless s/he supports a law.

Someone should have informed the laity these were not to be the norm and let the laity make an intelligent decision. The way these changes were tolerated gave the indication to the laity, they were accepted by the Magisterium itself. We had been drilled on accepting the Church’s teachings all our lives, without question, so we didn’t know the difference.

Would the early Apostles have tolerated such dissension from their Bishops?

This goes back to my question of how much power does the clergy ( archbishops, bishops, on down) have to make their own decisions and teachings about interpretations of dogma, and doctrine without correction? When they don’t comply, which it appears happened in many instances in the reforms after Vatican II, who can contest their teachings?
 
Sometimes it helps to have a different perspective. The quesiton by the OP would seem to indicate that the poster has a rather simple view of the Church, and one that is shared by many people.

There is something like 1 billion Catholics in the world (it helps, on occasion, to realize that the Church has to shepard a few more people than we realize).

So what does 1 billion people mean? Try this: if there were 10,000 cardinals, bishops and clergy in all the dicasteries in Rome, they would each be “responsible” for 100,000 people. And that presumes that those in the dicasteries are actually responsible for those people; many, if not most of the dicasteries are busy about many things other than what someone - a priest, a bishop, a parish - is doing or not doing.

The pope - this one or the previous one - meets with a bishop about once every 5 years; the time is limited (the pope meets them in groups, and his time with any one of them may be limited to an hour individually), and he won’t generally be meeting with that bishop again for another 5 years.

The pope does not hear each and every complaint that heads to Rome; I would doubt that he hears about 10% of the complaints.

The Church is not set up on a business model; the pope is not the CEO, with the bishops as mid-level department managers. The pope may well be “where the buck stops”, but most “bucks” don’t ever get to his “desk”. Most of it ends up in a dicastery; and they can only physically handle about so much - remember the ten thousand to 100,000 figure above? Well, there are not 10,000 members in the dicastery which would deal with liturgical abuses. There aren’t 1,000 (which would mean 1,000,000,000 they would be resposnible for…).

Further, we may be in the age of instant messaging; but that does not mean that Rome gets on the internet and burns off an email to a bishop every time someone complains about something the bishop has or has not done, or let or didn’t let some priest do…

Everyone - priests, bishops, cardinals, the pope - are busy, and most of them are busy every day, and with matters that often have nothing whatsoever to do with how Mass was said. And most of them have more matters than can be handled in the time that we as mere mortals are allotted in a day, which means that matters go through a constant triage of what crisis is currently in most need of attention.

The net result is that most of what goes on in any parish is not even noticed by the bishop, and literally almost none of it ever gets the attention of Rome. For that matter, most of what goes on in a diocese is not noticed by Rome. Major issues of long standing time - take for example the issue of liberation theology which has been rampant in much of South and Central America - goes on for a number of years before Rome rally gets focused on it; it then goes on for a good period of time before Rome makes much response. And the short of it is that Rome rarely ever makes a fast decsion, nor does it take a short route to resolving the issue; not now, and not really within the entire history of the Church. Issues in the earliest Church (you can read about them in the Acts of the Apostles) took a long time to solve, and the Church wasn’t a whole lot larger in terms of total Catholics than what we have today in a large diocese.

Take another relatively minor issue in rubrics - holding hands during the Our Father. That started over 40 years ago; there should be little doubt that Rome had not heard of it by the first time they re-wrote the GIRM - nothing happened. They re-wrote the GIRm a second time and there still has been nothing out of Rome about it. They appear to have bigger fish to fry.

There is a lot of frustration by a number of people of things which may be wrong. The Church is huge, and many of the things people complain about are often not even really noticed by Rome; and when they are, rome may make a response and then move on to other matters (meaning that the issue may not be resolved at all).

For all the claims of Modernism (most of which have nothing to do with Modernism) being the cause of everything that is wrong or is perceived to be wrong, most of it has more to do with the size of the church, the constant flow of issues the Church has to deal with, and the overall way that the Church deals with issues.
Can you please explain something to me?

1 billion, Ok. So it’d be interesting to know what the population was back in say, 1960. Were there more Catholics back then? I’m sure that in Europe and American, where we’re experiencing the consolidation of churches and dwindling church attendance, it’s probably a safe bet to say we’re a far smaller number of Catholics than we used to be. Would you agree? Not to mention fewer clergy… Yet we didn’t have all the abuses back then that we see today. Correct? Why? What you’re saying doesn’t seem to make any sense to me in light of this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top