"While it is true that 'liberals' claim 'good Pope John' as one
of their own (despite the evidence) and regarded JP II as a
Which is truly ironic. As shown clearly by the
recent of NLM articles by Peter Kwasniewski on the writings of John
XXIII, he was utterly traditional with regard to liturgy, ecclesiology,
doctrine, and spirituality. Arguably considerably more than John Paul
II. In particular, he was in particular a passionate over of the
traditional Mass and its spiritual ethos.
Not only did the
liberals hijack Vatican II, they committed highway robbery in fencing
John XXIII as one of their own. For his intent in convening Vatican II
was to send the triumphant Church of the 1950s out to conquer the
world--in a true new pentecost, rather than the collapse at the hands of
liberals that followed Paul VI's council--armed with the glories of
traditional faith and liturgy.
I think, though, we would need some accurate sociological data concerning the Church in Europe in the post-war years and the accelerated secularism occurring there especially in light of the atrocities that Hitler had committed with the assistance of religious people.
The USA has had a similar accelerated secularism with the scandals of religion, whether that be radical Islamic terrorism, the various scandals of high profile television evangelists or the sex abuse crisis and scandal in the Catholic Church that has led to an ambivalence and disregard for religion in general and Catholicism and evangelicalism in particular.
The 1950's Church in the USA was at the apex of the Church's golden years in the 20th century only to have that success hijacked by liberals in the Church throughout the world, but particularly here in the USA. Religious life was strong, priesthood was strong and so were vocations and strong Catholic families centered on parish life, schools and other social services usually organized by women religious such as hospitals, soup kitchens and other assistance to the poor, especially immigrants to this country.
The Liturgy was not criticized by rank and file clergy and laity well until after tinkering with it was allowed.
Religious life was respected as was the priesthood and Catholic families had no problem encouraging there sons and daughters to enter this kind of service to the Church.
What could have really accelerated the success of 1950's Catholicism was what Vatican II actually tried to accomplish before it was modified by liberals in the most dastardly way after Vatican II. These would have been:
1. A conservative approach to modifying the liturgy to include some vernacular, a wider use of Scripture in the Lectionary and clearly encouraging Catholics toward actual participation both internally and externally without denigrating their popular and private devotions.
2. Slight modification to religious life to make their lives a bit more comfortable concerning habits and discipline in the convent and monasteries, but without sacrificing either habits or discipline within the context of communal living, and a common apostolate that members are called and sent to serve apart from them choosing this, that or the other.
3. Better understanding of Protestantism and other religions not to mention those with no religion or no beliefs. But the purpose of this to invite all to the true Church and its fulness without sacrificing the cultural and visible characteristics of the Roman Rite.
4. The appropriate ecclesiology that does not undermine the Magisterium of the Church or Dioceses and parishes on the local level
5. Addressing clericalism in the clergy and making sure the laity are not clericalized but that their primary ministry is to take to their faith to the world and public square
What we will never know until we get to heaven is what the Church in 2014 would be like if we had properly implemented what Vatican II actually taught or if there had been no Vatican II. I can't wait to find out once I get to heaven!