CATHOLIC SELF-LOATHING, TERROR OF PRE-VATICAN II CATHOLIC IDENTITY AND THE LOSS OF THE PRE-VATICAN II CATHOLIC IDENTITY THAT WAS THE BACKBONE OF THE CHURCH IN THE USA AND AROUND THE WORLD

IMAGES OF PRE-VATICAN II CATHOLIC IDENTITY THAT PROGRESSIVE, ELITIST, SECULAR CATHOLICS ABSOLUTELY DESPISE AND HOPE WILL NEVER RETURN (ALTHOUGH SOME OF IT IS NOW AGAIN BACK, LIKE JASON AND THIS TERRORIZES CATHOLIC ELITIST, PROGRESSIVE SECULARISTS!)

:

As my generation of Catholics age and those older than me begins to forget and die off, we are losing people who are "bridge" Catholics, those who remember quite well the Catholic identity of clergy and laity prior to the Second Vatican Council and who lived through the storms of so-called renewal after the Council. Pope Benedict is on the dying end of those Catholics who were clergy prior to and during the Council. There are not than many left and the new pope, whenever he is elected, may well be a person who can remember the pre-Vatican II Church only through the eyes of a child, not an adult.

Why is there so much animosity by Catholic progressive elitists towards SSPX? Because SSPX presents a younger face and younger experience of Catholic identity and practice prior the the Second Vatican Council, both its good and bad aspects and keeps it alive, far from being dead and buried. Catholic progressive, elitists hate their ancestry and thought that it would be relegated to history and this group (SSPX) that started in France shortly after the Council by a rebellious archbishop keeps alive all that secular, progressive, elitists Catholics want to see relegated to history as a bad memory. It is the apex of self-loathing by these secularist elitists in the Church.

The following I lift and copy from the blog Chiesa:

Sandro Magister today offered comments and published an article by John R T Lamont (For the Lefebvrists, It's the Last Call to the Sheepfold.) Lamont uses a response to the Holy See by Fr Jean-Michel Gleize FSSPX to summarise the difficulties that the SSPX has with a few texts from Vatican II. He then lists a number of conciliar texts on the scriptures, the Church, the Eucharist and marriage and points out that in fact the SSPX accept all of these and that far more of the teaching of Vatican II than many theologians in Europe, North America, and Australasia. He then says:

The vast majority of theologians (secular, progressive, elitist Catholics) in Catholic institutions in Europe, North America, and Australasia would reject most or all of these teachings. These theologians are followed by the majority of religious orders and a substantial part of the bishops in these areas. It would be difficult, for example, to find a Jesuit teaching theology in any Jesuit institution who would accept a single one of them. The texts above are only a selection from the teachings of Vatican II that are rejected by these groups; they could be extended to many times the number.

Such teachings however form part of the 95% of Vatican II that the FSSPX accepts. Unlike the 5% of that council rejected by the FSSPX, however, the teachings given above are central to Catholic faith and morals, and include some of the fundamental teachings of Christ himself.

The areas where SSPX would disagree with the teachings of the Second Vatican Council are based upon their belief that these Vatican II teachings actually contradict previous Catholic doctrine and authoritative papal teachings and these are as follows:

In a response to a study of the doctrinal authority of the Second Vatican Council by Bp. Fernando Ocáriz, Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize FSSPX has listed the elements of that council that the FSSPX find unacceptable.

"On at least four points, the teachings of the Second Vatican Council are obviously in logical contradiction to the pronouncements of the previous traditional Magisterium, so that it is impossible to interpret them in keeping with the other teachings already contained in the earlier documents of the Church’s Magisterium. Vatican II has thus broken the unity of the Magisterium, to the same extent to which it has broken the unity of its object.

"These four points are as follows.

"The doctrine on religious liberty, as it is expressed in no. 2 of the Declaration 'Dignitatis humanae,' contradicts the teachings of Gregory XVI in 'Mirari vos' and of Pius IX in 'Quanta cura' as well as those of Pope Leo XIII in 'Immortale Dei' and those of Pope Pius XI in 'Quas primas.'

"The doctrine on the Church, as it is expressed in no. 8 of the Constitution 'Lumen gentium,' contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius XII in 'Mystici corporis' and 'Humani generis.'

"The doctrine on ecumenism, as it is expressed in no. 8 of 'Lumen gentium' and no. 3 of the Decree 'Unitatis redintegratio,' contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius IX in propositions 16 and 17 of the 'Syllabus,' those of Leo XIII in 'Satis cognitum,' and those of Pope Pius XI in 'Mortalium animos.'

"The doctrine on collegiality, as it is expressed in no. 22 of the Constitution 'Lumen gentium,' including no. 3 of the 'Nota praevia' [Explanatory Note], contradicts the teachings of the First Vatican Council on the uniqueness of the subject of supreme power in the Church, in the Constitution 'Pastor aeternus'."

My final comments:

I have always loved the Church since I can remember and was fascinated by the liturgy of the Church. When I was 3 years old we moved from Naples, Italy to Atlanta, Georgia and attended two churches there, the Catholic chapel on Fort McPherson Army Post and St. Anthony Church in Atlanta's west end. Both had priests and pre-Vatican II Masses that captured my imagination. Then we moved to Augusta in 1960 and attended a small parish, called St. Joseph Church which was 1950's modern architecture but had a priest who cared about the Mass and attention to detail in the pre-Vatican II Mass and emphasized Catholic identity in a Protestant culture.

Most if not all of my close friends in that period were Protestant. I was proud to be Catholic because Catholics were different and we had a unique Mass. We had unique customs and we were "universal" not parochial as the Protestants of the south were.

The biggest thing I noticed in the changes in the Church after Vatican II in the south, especially as it regards its liturgy and identity is that we as Catholics were tying to become more Protestant in faith and worship than Protestants were tying to become more Catholic. In fact we had priests preach from the pulpit that the Catholic Church was dead wrong on many things that led to the Protestant Reformation and that the Protestants were right. (This would have been quite shocking to hear from the pulpit!) Of course this was said from the pulpit where people could not ask questions or seek clarification. So it sounded like to most of us poor, dumb lay people that we Catholics had been wrong all along and the Protestants were right all along and that we had to become more Protestant as Catholics because that was the right way and would lead to the eventual reunion of Catholics and Protestants. (This is a simplification, but I think I convey the gist of what many of us at that period felt we were being taught and why this led to such a loss of Catholic identity and confidence in what had been the rock of our lives for so long--our strong Catholic identity based upon our rock solid belief that the Catholic Church is the true Church. That was certainly undermined in the 1960's!)

Then there was in the 1960's a powerful explosion of the Charismatic movement that was clearly Pentecostal Protestant in thrust, ecclessiology, spirituality and interpreting the Scriptures. Many very traditional Catholics gave up on traditional "rigid" Catholic identity, spirituality, devotion and belief and aligned themselves with this rather ugly form of Protestantism although remaining Catholic. These charismatics became very divisive in their parishes and alienated many of their Catholic brothers and sisters. But the hierarchy seem to embrace them and their Protestant ethos, so Protestant Pentecostalism with its anti-Catholic bigotry seem to be embraced even by the bishops of the Church through the charismatic movement! That was the perception, right or wrong. You can understand how that perception would undermine traditional Catholic identity!

Then there was the movement toward a new ecclesiology (understanding of the Church) that was more democratic. The laity were given a voice and a vote especially through parish councils and committees galore. We actually thought we could vote a "new Church into being!" The sense of the faithful (regardless of the fidelity of the faithful) was the working of the Holy Spirit. Today, listen to modern, secularized, elitist Catholics decry the "monarchy" of the Church as they try to reshape the Catholic Church into a secularized institution embracing the ethos of the radical wing of the democrat party!

And then it appeared that the Second Vatican Council was teaching that the Catholic Church wasn't the true Church and that it only "subsisted" within the Church and that Protestants were on an equal footing with us. It also appeared that the Second Vatican Council was embracing Universalism, that is, that people could be saved by their own gods and religions independently from Christ and the true Church.

Is there any wonder why SSPX came into existence with all that was happening in the 1960's and 70's? The five percent of what I described above that I am an eyewitness to and experienced is the 5% that has led to the loss of Catholic identity in about 80% of Catholics who no longer bother to come to Mass, have their children baptized or claim any Catholic identity whatsoever and the 20% who do come to Mass don't realize that they do not experience the fullness of Catholic identity and if they saw it expressed in SSPX they'd think that the SSPX experience of Christianity is a "cult" just like the Protestants believed of Catholics prior to the Council. Interesting no?

Today, though, Catholic, progressive elitists are no longer embracing Protestantism and through it striving to reshape and re identify the Catholic Church, they are embracing secular, political progressiveness which has its own gods and ways of worship. It is based upon a non-Christian, anti-Catholic approach to sex, medical ethics and human behavior under the guise of "love" and "inclusiveness." It is about sex without pro-creation and between any variety of consenting adults, it is about same sex marriage and multiple partner marriages, it is about abortion, artificial contraception, and sterilization if one chooses these options, guilt free, it is about euthanasia, medical experimentation and creating Utopia. It is about post-Catholicism. They must be stopped!

Pray for our Holy Father, pray for the Church but be hopeful. The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church. The Church of 2012, the true Church, will remain, smaller but purer and with a very clear Catholic identity and SSPX may well be the vehicle God has prepared since the Second Vatican Council to make that happen. God works in mysterious ways. Just pray that SSPX will be purified of any antisemitism, over-reaction rigidity and fascism of any type. These are works of the devil that thwart the otherwise good work they have accomplished in preserving the best of Pre-Vatican II Catholic identity.