WHY DO PROGRESSIVES IMPOSE "THEOLOGY" PASTORAL OR OTHERWISE, ON THE CHURCH IN THE MOST PRE-VATICAN II DOGMATIC WAY POSSIBLE?

Most Catholics who are old enough to remember the pre-Vatican II Church can remember how dogmatic priests and bishops were. The laity were often treated as children rather than adults. In part, this has a great deal to do with the laity's rebellion in the late 1960's when the Church after Vatican II began to be more pastoral than dogmatic. Many Catholics under the heavy yoke of authoritarianism, like a child, moved from childhood to adolescence using and abusing their new found freedoms. They did not move to their adult state.

Today, heterodox, progressives continue to promote a pastoral council, which Vatican II was, as well as more recent documents coming from the Holy Father in a dogmatic, pre-Vatican II authoritarian way just as it was done by the Magisterium after Vatican II and their cohorts. Just think of the Maltese Falcons, I mean, bishops.

The orthodox, though, should keep in mind that prior to Vatican II, pastoral theology was often promoted in a dogmatic, authoritarian way. Just think the the theology of Limbo for unbaptized infants. It was a pastoral theology that presented a better option than eternal damnation for unbaptized infants. It was a more merciful pastoral approach not only for the infants but for their parents, grandparents, siblings and friends. But it was never a formulated doctrine let alone dogma. It was a pastoral theology.

The greatest area in which progressives highjacked and dogmatized the Second Vatican Council is on its pastoral perspective (which can never be dogmatized, by the way) as well as on the reform of the Liturgy. One gets a sense of this in a recent interview by Italian media with the Liturgist, Fr. Andrew Grillo, professor of liturgy at the Pontifical Atheneum of St. Anselm. (Keep in mind, though, how Pope Francis described liturgists recently: "what's the diffference between a liturgist and a terrorist? You can negotiate with a terrorist!" )

This originally appeared as a feature on Rai News, and was conducted by Pierluigi Mele:

 Professor, there is a debate in the Church of Rome, which at first might seem only to be of interest to the “insiders,” but which is in reality important to all the people of God. We are talking about translation of the liturgy. As you know, the Second Vatican Council initiated a Copernican revolution in Catholic liturgy. Under Pope John Paul II, the document Liturgiam authenticam was issued. It provides the criteria for the translation of the liturgy from Latin to the various languages. We know that the current Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship is the ultra-conservative Cardinal Sarah, who dreams of a “reform of the reform” of the Catholic liturgy. What, in your view, are the limitations of Liturgiam authenticam?

The first thing to say is that the 2001 document is part of a long chain of texts produced by the central magisterium – papal and curial – between the late 1980s until the first decade of the new century. All these documents are united by one characteristic: they are the fruit of fear. They are a reaction to the trust and confidence that the Second Vatican Council had introduced into the Church of the 1960s and 1970s, overcoming the anti-modern trauma that had paralyzed the Church for more than a century. Now we move back to the old mistrust and suspicion. They brought back the nineteenth-century frame of mind. In this particular case, it is the mistrust and suspicion of modern languages ​​and modern cultures. The authority to translate them has been taken away, and keeping in line requires a method of translation from Latin that yields a result that is, one can say without exaggeration, comic: If you follow the rules laid down, the resulting text is incomprehensible; but if you want a text that is understandable, you have to violate the rules. This is the experience of all the national episcopal conferences for the past 15 years. It is happening widely. The events related to the Missal translation into English, German, French, and Italian are just the best known examples.

After reading the authoritarian, myopic, narrow views of Grillo above, compare this with the common sense approach of Cardinal Ratzinger the future pope. His views are certainly more pastoral, middle of the road and beneficial for the Church:

In this 2003 video, Cardinal Ratzinger speaks of ad orientem celebration:

He also speaks about a future document favorable to the Traditional Mass:

"There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture.  What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.”
My final comments: What Cardinal Ratinger and later as pope, wanted to do was to promote inner healing in the Church which was happening under his pontificate as Catholic identity was being recovered in a marvelous way and polarization was being reduced. Pope Francis and his friends still enamoured with the post Vatican II confusion and rupture want to restore the wounds to the Church that Pope Benedict so valiantly tried to heal. What a mess we are in now and very similar to what happened after Vatican II by these very same dogmatists who are so very authoritarian.