southern orders: HOW THE INSECURE REACT WHEN THEIR MEME IS CONTRACTED AND TORN TO SHREDS. THE TRUTH BE TOLD, HELL HATH NO FURY WHEN AN INSECURE ACADEMIC’S PREMISE IS TORN TO SHREDS

Saturday, August 15, 2020

HOW THE INSECURE REACT WHEN THEIR MEME IS CONTRACTED AND TORN TO SHREDS. THE TRUTH BE TOLD, HELL HATH NO FURY WHEN AN INSECURE ACADEMIC’S PREMISE IS TORN TO SHREDS

A Blast from the Past: When Affirmation of Vatican II Was a Given

Press the title above for the post from Praytell that led to these comments below. Of course, Tom is 100% correct and Rita and Fr. Tony are in denial since Tom destroys their blog and its premise with his innate common sense.

Think of religious orders that are on the verge of extinction compared to those prospering today. The dying ones still tout their elderly meme of so called renewal a success and a road from which they will not diverge. It really is not only sad but tragic.

Here are the Money comments:

Is there anyplace in the historic heartlands of Catholicism where the Church is stronger today than before Vatican II? A single diocese even?

If there isn’t, it really shouldn’t be a surprise that questions about the Council are being raised.

Not a single diocese better now than before the Council in Italy. Or France. Or Spain. Or Portugal. Or Austria. Or Belgium. Or Ireland. Countries that, between them, Catholicized the planet and that now can’t even Catholicize themselves.

Those who argue for an uncritical embrace of Vatican II are going to have to do better than “it would be worse without the Council.”

On the contrary:

Hi Tom,
Logical fallacy alert. It’s called “post hoc ergo propter hoc.” Because something happened after the Council does not mean it happened because of the Council. As I look back over the events that have diminished the numbers in church institutions in America, most are about sex. Humanae vitae distanced a whole generation. This was not the fruit of Vatican II. Priestly celibacy was not the fruit of Vatican II either, yet many men left the priesthood because of celibacy. Look at the number of married deacons. There are plenty of men who want to serve the church, they just don’t want to be celibate anymore. Another example: The sex abuse crisis. This was not the fruit of Vatican II at all, but it has been the cause of bleeding of institutions and diminished trust in the hierarchy. The role of women: many have left the church or don’t pursue involvement because they believe the church treats women as second class citizens. Nothing to do with Vatican II, it’s about sexism. The younger generation now spurns the Church as anti-gay. Again, not about Vatican II.

Anthony Ruff, OSB says:

August 14, 2020 at 7:46 am

Tom,

Rita is correct in naming your false logic. There are massive declines in organized religion around the globe going back 50 or 100 years or more. All the institutional declines since 1965 could well have happened to the same extent without Vatican II. Note the declines in institutions strength of Eastern Orthodoxy in the west during this time period – and they didn’t have a Vatican II.

I know it *feels* like there is a causal connection. But don’t trust that emotional feeling, for it does not constitute a data-driven, factual analysis.

awr

My astute comments that can not be contradicted:

First of all, for ill-informed progressives in the Church, especially clergy and religious men and women, Vatican II opened up the possibility that if one thing could change then everything could change, including doctrine and dogma, what once was believed by all faithful Catholics as Divine Truth. Once Divine Truth is questioned and the bad old meany pope and bishops won’t accommodate an alternate truth that is a lie, then the Catholic either disengages or leaves the Church.

Of course Vatican II did no such thing, unless you use, as these wild clerics and religious did, the hermenuetic of rupture to interpret the Council rather than Pope Benedict's hermenuetic of renewal in continuity.

What Fr. Tony and Ms. Rita want is falsehood embraced to keep those in the Church who are no longer Catholic because they actually deny Divine Revealed Truth as articulated by the true, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Thus Ms. Rita and Fr. Tony don’t believe that human sexuality can be disordered and mortally sinful. They don’t believe the Sacrament of Marriage is for one man and one woman and for a lifetime. They don’t believe that the all male sacramental priesthood is divinely revealed but sociologically dictated. They don’t believe sexuality belongs in divinely revealed Sacramental marriage for the procreation of children as well as the unity of the couple and the strengthening of marital love and Christian family life.

Thus, if people leave the Church and HER Divine Truth, Divine Truth is the problem and must be changed to accommodate sociological shifts that lead to a new paradigm of truth which is really falsehood and lies.

What is important to the true Church is fidelity to Divine Truth even if that means we have a smaller but more faithful Church. We don’t need a false Church that appeases the world’s falsehoods or Catholics who prefer the world’s falsehoods to Divine Truth.

Right now the Church and its post-Vatican II spirit wants to speak out of both sides of the mouth and accommodate those who don’t believe the Deposit of Faith. Who wants to belong to that kind of marshmallow with no real identity?

The Catholic Church is at a crossroads. If we can’t recover immutable truth that can’t be changed and Catholics who believe Divine Truth can’t be changed, what is the point of the Church other than a kind of country club of friends and social connections regardless of what they embrace as so-called truth.

If reiterating Divine Truth that contradicts our culture’s lies causes Catholics to leave the Church, that is free will in action.

But if creating a Church that is ambivalent about Divine Truth and changes it to accommodate and appease those who want lies, who want that other than those who are worldly?

Fr. Tony makes my point when he speaks about the Orthodox Church which has not had a Vatican II losing members too. They have maintained “their” orthodoxy and will not bend to accommodate what they believe to be heterodoxy or heterodox members. That is strength not weakness!

We have the truth, Divine Truth, and if the Church institutionally remains faithful even if people leave that is a good thing, not bad.

But when we have heterodox dioceses and parishes with a very worldly clientele who really aren’t Catholic, but claim to be, who wants that except for the clique that does?

There is a big difference in a bad or unfaithful Catholic who knows they are both, but perseveres with the Church because Divine Truth is upheld and the person hopes one day, by God’s grace, to be conformed to the Church’s truth or they remain in the Church, hanging by a thread, in hopes of eternal life despite their lack of true belief.

Compare that to a bad Catholics who through pride believe the Church should accommodate them when in fact they are no longer believing Catholics, and they demand acceptance and the falsehoods they believe to be true. Delusional, no? Schizophrenic, no? Dysfunctional, no? YESSSS!

Welcome to Praytell.

40 comments:

John said...: Tom is right.... Read Iota Unum. The proof of the destruction of the Church project by faithless hierarchs is amply and well documented.; August 15, 2020 at 7:07 AM
Anonymous said...: "...Vatican II opened the possibility that if one thing could change then everything could change, including doctrine and dogma,..."

Can you refer to the passage(s) in Vatican Two that does/do this?

"What is important to the true Church is fidelity to Divine Truth even if that means we have a smaller but more faithful Church."

This is nominalism run amok. "Follow the rules, all will be well, you are a "good Catholic" is a false description of faith.; August 15, 2020 at 7:54 AM
Anonymous said...: More proof Vatican II was a flop. "Catholics" on Austin, Texas' City Council voted for this:

"Not only will defunding police get innocent people killed, but the city council doubled down on that: Some of the funds that would have been devoted to law enforcement will be diverted to cover abortion in the city."

If the Church was as powerful as it was before the Council, no Catholic would have dared voted for this; August 15, 2020 at 8:31 AM
Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...: Frmjk@7:45 am, I should have added, it opened in the minds of those Catholics who can't make distinctions. If the Mass can change, its ecclesiology, its emphasis, its practice, so can everything else. It is jumping to conclusions and people in high places as well as rank and file Catholics believed this as Council's reforms were taking place. In my parish in the 1960's, our orthodox priest were at pains to insist that only discipline was changing, which could/should change, but not doctrine and dogma. This was not being taught though by radical priests and nuns at all. Everything was up for grabs.

This wasn't the council, but its spirit cause by the very ambiguity of the council.

A28:31, yes, prior to the Council, no Catholic would dare to publicly vote for abortion and most democrats were pro-life as most Catholics were democrats at the time.; August 15, 2020 at 8:40 AM
Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...: There would have been harsh rebukes by local bishops.; August 15, 2020 at 8:41 AM
Mark Thomas said...: Father Thomas Weinandy, O.F.M. Capuchin, is certainly no a liberal.

Via the current August-September edition of Inside The Vatican, Father Weinandy denounced Archbishop Viganò's (for that matter, the right-wing, as well) recent assault upon Vatican II.

https://insidethevatican.com/news/newsflash/letter-14-july-27-2020-dossier-vatican-ii/?utm_source=MLITV&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=ML14081020

Father Weinandy insisted that Vatican II has produced good fruit.

He rejected the claim that Vatican II is responsible for the collapse of the Church (throughout much of the West).

He rejected the claim that nonsense taught in the name of Vatican II is the fault of Vatican II.
=========================================================================================

Father Weinandy also argued in favor of Vatican II here:

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2020/08/13/a-response-to-archbishop-viganos-letter-about-vatican-ii/

Pax.

Mark Thomas; August 15, 2020 at 8:44 AM
Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...: Anyone with an ounce of sense would agree with Fr. Weinandy. The problem is that a significant number of clergy and laity want a different Church, a spirit of Vatican II Church and will either leave or disengage from the Church if women aren't ordained, same sex marriage not sanctioned, abortion and birth control not allowed, and every other liberal political meme not approved.

On the right, we have those who will do the same, meaning leave the Church, unless the Church returns to what it was like prior to the Council. Each extreme is cut from the same cloth, the deadly sin of pride.

But the Council and its various interpretations ignited the state of disarray and disunity we are experiencing today. And because Pope Francis has returned us to so many 1970's positions and points of view, this has exacerbated this disunity and chaos.; August 15, 2020 at 9:27 AM
Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...: Father Thomas Weinandy, O.F.M article linked below:
https://insidethevatican.com/news/newsflash/letter-14-july-27-2020-dossier-vatican-ii/?utm_source=MLITV&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=ML14081020

However, none of what Fr. Weinandy says contradicts these opening paragraphs of his essay all of which happened almost immediately following the Council. There has to be a cause and an effect to say the least:

First, in the aftermath of Vatican II, many distressing things occurred within the Church. Some of these are still taking place, and others have newly arisen. They are well known — many priests abandoned the priesthood; men and women religious sought dispensation from their vows, thus leaving their orders decimated; almost the entire Catholic population of some countries discontinued the practice of the faith, Holland and Belgium being the first evident examples; Catholic theologians trumpeted dubious and erroneous theological opinions, with entire theological faculties becoming bastions of dissent against Catholic doctrine and morals. This list could be enlarged, but the above is such a well-rehearsed scenario that it has become trite.

The present problem is that all of the above evils that afflicted the Church after Vatican II, and continue to do so in various ways, are said to find their cause within Vatican II itself, or more so within the so-called “spirit of Vatican II” — the liberal hermeneutic that declared that what is important about the Council is not so much what it said, but more so the new liberating spirit that it engendered.

Nonetheless, the conclusion is often drawn that if it were not for the Council, the Church would have continued to thrive as it seemingly was doing prior to the Council. This, I claim, is an erroneous judgment.; August 15, 2020 at 10:06 AM
Pierre said...: But for the Council, the Catholic Church might have been a bastion of sanity during the turbulent 1960s. The Church is always stronger when it is counter cultural and may have gained greater strength during that time; August 15, 2020 at 10:32 AM
Fr. Michael Kavanaugh said...: "This, I claim, is an erroneous judgment."

It is, and that is what I have said here and elsewhere time and time again. Blaming the Council is easy because it gives a person what they think is a clear target for their frustration and anger. But it completely overlooks the vast cultural and societal changes that the entire western world was undergoing from the beginning of the Indistrial Revolution through the abolition of monarchies across Europe into two World Wars and the Cold war, through the disastrous effects of the war in Vietnam on American societal cohesion, to the initiation of the Age of Information.

Blaming the Council is a dangerous misdiagnosis precisely because it leads to a dangerous "cure."; August 15, 2020 at 10:34 AM
Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...: By the late 70's, we were taught in the seminary three separate paradigms for the Church and thus Christ. The pre-Vatican II model was "Christ above Culture", the Second Vatican Council as a pastoral council advocated for "Christ with Culture" but what has or is transpiring after the Council and with erroneous interpretations is "Christ below culture." In fact "Christ with culture" leads to Christ being placed beneath it and subjugated to the culture as we are seeing some Catholics, like the Praytell clique, advocating.; August 15, 2020 at 10:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous at 7:54

You dont seem to know the difference between a RULE and DIVINE TRUTH.

What is important to the true Church is fidelity to Divine Truth even if that means we have a smaller but more faithful Church. We don’t need a false Church that appeases the world’s falsehoods or Catholics who prefer the world’s falsehoods to Divine Truth.

Father Allan statement here is right on target.; August 15, 2020 at 10:51 AM
Anonymous said...: The Viet Nam War was not an issue for most until 1967, 2 years after the disastrous Council had already unleashed its havoc on the Church; August 15, 2020 at 11:06 AM
Anonymous said...: This is from the History Channel:

Bombarded by horrific images of the war on their televisions, Americans on the home front turned against the war as well: In October 1967, some 35,000 demonstrators staged a massive Vietnam War protest outside the Pentagon. Opponents of the war argued that civilians, not enemy combatants, were the primary victims and that the United States was supporting a corrupt dictatorship in Saigon.

Vatican II concluded on December 8, 1965.; August 15, 2020 at 11:18 AM
Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...: Correct, FrMJK does not recall the 1969’s first hand and what he describes is late 60’s and certainly the 70’s. The initial damage was caused by bishops, priest and religious orders of men and women who had Pre-Vatican II influence on a huge chunk of laity, especially the young and enabled their on going rebellion by the late 60’s sexual revolution and anti authority mentality.; August 15, 2020 at 11:21 AM
Pierre said...: Father McDonald,

Spot on! We were old enough to recall these times. I still say the Church could have remained a bastion of sanity during this time. Her representatives chose not to. They chose badly. This was a failed, top down revolution; August 15, 2020 at 11:42 AM
Fr Martin Fox said...: As the second Vatican Council recedes in the rear-view mirror, it becomes just another event in the history of the Church, and just another ecumenical council. This perspective on the council is something I notice more and more among younger Catholics, and this is important for some of us to recognize, because we are of the age for whom Vatican II loomed large, but there is a new generation coming along, and they don't define reality in terms of "the Council"; even that phrasing gives the game away: "what council did you mean, Father?"

There was a time when it was shocking to question the follow-up to Vatican II, and it was ridiculous to claim that there was anything wrong with its implementation. After a certain point, the response changed to, oh, well, problems happened, but all the supposed problems are overblown; then the response changed to (as in the case of Father Ruff's comment, above), oh everything was going to hell already so what do you expect? But along the way, it stopped being sacrilegious to reexamine the implementation, but instead, the defensive position is that there's no need.

So, at some point, what is whispered here and there, now, it will become possible to say openly: that perhaps some content, some decisions, of Vatican II were less than they might have been.

Nota bene: saying such does not call into question the council being authentic, nor does it call into question our assurance of the Holy Spirit safeguarding the Church's teaching from error; because to wonder if the Council's deliberations or work-product might have been better, is not to accuse the Council of error.

When I was in the seminary, we had discussions about whether Vatican I, and Trent, and other councils, might have been more productive, or might have responded better to their situation -- and no one thought we were doing anything naughty by asking those questions. So why can't such questions be asked about Vatican II? For now, there are still some folks around who get offended by such questions, but that won't last forever.; August 15, 2020 at 12:15 PM
Victor said...: Just to set something straight. With regards to the Council causing this disaster we have today, the informal fallacy "post hoc ergo propter hoc" is often invoked by those who would deny this. But what they forget is that it is an informal fallacy, not a formal one. That is to say, the argument of one following the other simply does not show that there is a necessary causal connection between the two. But that does not mean that there is no necessary causal connection; it is just that the argument of one event following the other cannot show it.
In claiming that there is no necessary connection only because the above argument cannot show it, they are the ones committing another logical fallacy, "ipse dixit" if not "argumentum ex silentio."
Worse still, I have rarely heard the argument expressed as merely one event following the other. Facts are usually cited to show the causal connection which are conveniently dismissed or ignored by those invoking "post hoc ergo propter hoc."; August 15, 2020 at 1:06 PM
Pierre said...: Father Fox,

Always the voice of reason. The decree that affects the folks in the pew, Sacrosanctum Concilium, needs major revisiting. The liturgical upheaval did not produce happy results and the hierarchy needs to acknowledge it, just like an alcoholic needs to recognize they have a problem so they can address their condition constructively.; August 15, 2020 at 1:16 PM
Fr. Michael Kavanaugh said...: The War in Vietnam is just another cause of the disaffesction and distrust of people in general for those who exercise authority. It added to the societal upheaval that was already underway, long beofre 1967.

The US bishops had been highly supportive of the war and the initially hawkish Lyndon Johnson. As the futility and the immorality of the war came into sharper focus, and as the deceptions carried out by those in the government and military who supported the war were exposed, the bishops came to oppose it in general. "Public opinion shifted with the rapid escalation of the conflict between March 1968 and March 1969, when the total number of U.S. soldiers who died in Vietnam jumped from roughly 19,000 to 33,000. Eventually, more than 58,000 Americans would lose their lives. By November 1971, the nation’s Catholic bishops had reversed themselves, saying the war in Vietnam no longer met the religious criteria for a “just war.” " (https://religionnews.com/2017/09/08/the-vietnam-years-how-the-conflict-ripped-the-nations-religious-fabric/)

Of course, the contemporary clergy abuse scandal has further damaged the credibility of the bishops, including those who acted prudently, and the Church.

To set the record straight, those who claim a causal relationship as THE cause of the decline in Catholic belief and participation in the sacraments bear the burden of showing that relationship. "It's true, but I cannot show it to be so" is insufficient.; August 15, 2020 at 2:29 PM
Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...: Rita Ferrone partially gets it right in her comment:
...It happened after the Council does not mean it happened because of the Council. As I look back over the events that have diminished the numbers in church institutions in America, most are about sex. Humanae vitae distanced a whole generation. This was not the fruit of Vatican II. Priestly celibacy was not the fruit of Vatican II either, yet many men left the priesthood because of celibacy. Look at the number of married deacons. There are plenty of men who want to serve the church, they just don’t want to be celibate anymore. Another example: The sex abuse crisis. This was not the fruit of Vatican II at all, but it has been the cause of bleeding of institutions and diminished trust in the hierarchy. The role of women: many have left the church or don’t pursue involvement because they believe the church treats women as second class citizens. Nothing to do with Vatican II, it’s about sexism. The younger generation now spurns the Church as anti-gay. Again, not about Vatican II.“

Why would Catholics leave the Church if they believed in God, believed in the Deposit of Faith and believed all that the Catholic Church, teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God. It is because of a cumulative effect of dumbing down the Church, her authority and mission, all in the name of change, constantly reforming, updating and being modern. All those people who abandon the true faith, even if they don’t know it, abandon it on the premise that the Church and and should change divine truth, but won’t and thus they leave. Where did they get that, even though they more than likely are clueless about Vatican II?; August 15, 2020 at 2:48 PM
rcg said...: But Ferrone stops short of a real scientific query: Did the Church do better or worse dealing with the sexual revolution under Vatican II than without it? She would reply that there is no way to tell. But we have strong anecdotal evidence in the traditional communities of an increase in attendance and vocations. Why not investigate this and see if there is something beneficial that can be learned and brought into the post-modern Church? Ferrone and Fr. Tony want for the human condition to have changed since some convenient time in the fairly recent past that will mitigate the failure of their experiment. But the Church was dealing, very successfully, with the weakness of human sexuality since the Romans made penis shaped road signs. The hallmark of the Vatican II era is the constant conniving to find excuses to relax the standard of behaviour that raises humanity above the animals. Indeed, Anonymous of 15 August 2020 at 7:54 am where are the passages that allowed the mockery of Faith that caused all of the money wasted on uncalled for renovations, liturgical tinkering, self-referential theology, Gay pipeline seminaries, and any other travesty that was done with the claimed imprimatur of Vatican II? Or more importantly, where were the corrections of these acts from the galaxy of cardinals, theologians, bishops, and intellectuals that participated in construction of Vatican II? Was it colossal ignorance? Disengagement? Or their universal sin of omission? Or more likely silent approval?

It seems that the defenders of Vatican II have taken the position now that it didn't really do anything, that the changes that were done were simply a startling coincidence. What, then is it for? Why keep it around?; August 15, 2020 at 5:28 PM
johnnyc said...: 50+ years on from V2 and the Church is not in very good shape. Many in the OF do not believe in the Real Presence, low attendance in OF parishes, bad catechesis in OF parishes. Ya gotta wonder why some don't think V2 had anything to do with this.

Vatican II = Biden/Pelosi 'catholics' and the liberal 'catholics' who will have no problem voting for anti Catholic culture of death Biden/Harris.

Of course Pope Francis gave it impetus by opening the door for the left even further when he said from the start that the Church should not focus on abortion and homosexuality. Not a good strategy when Our Lady said the final battle will be the attack on marriage and the family. But the increase in liberalism comes from V2 imo.

It's bad but it could have been even worse if not for one of God's surprises in Summorum Pontificum and the flourishing of the TLM. It started the opposition to the liberalism in the Church. And again ya gotta wonder why some are bemoaning the TLM and the increase in attendance especially by young people and families.; August 15, 2020 at 6:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Fr. Fox, spot on again.
And Fr. MJK 2:29, mostly true, but societal upheaval was not “long before 1967”. It really began in earnest around 1965. I lived it “up nawth” late 50s to early 60s. Believe me, things (other than the Kinsey Reports and sequelae, which the average American didn’t pay much attention to) were pretty tame...no upheaval.
But, then...1965. The war escalated and VII ending created a perfect storm. I got a full ride to college in NYC area, but my brother was drafted because no scholarship and no money for college. The Mass in NY was unrecognizable. Soon after, all hades broke loose.; August 15, 2020 at 7:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous at 7:33,

The Viet Nam War was still popular in late 1967 and the Council ended in December 8, 1965, two years earlier. The Church was already in disarray before the war became unpopular, so that dog won’t hunt.; August 15, 2020 at 9:55 PM
Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...: What some commenters are missing is this. Certainly younger people who are becoming nones are leaving the Church because the Church today cannot give them a good enough apologetic for her teachings that go against the tide of the dictatorship of relativism. The culture is far more convincing of its “amoral” principles and laws than the Church is. Former Catholics or nones fear being marginalized, ridiculed or harassed for being Catholic which in the mind of the leaders of the secular agenda, would earn wrath and loss of job and no chance of success.
The “spirit” of Vatican II comes to play in Catholics, be they clergy or laity my age and older who think the only solution is to toss in the towel and conform to cultural mores in order to win back disaffected nones. We’re the ones who thought, wrongly I hope, that Vatican II’s door opening to change of discipline can also be applied to Divine Truth. That is the problem and Fr. Tony and Ms. Rita exemplify it but a far from the only ones.; August 16, 2020 at 5:44 AM
Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...: My other comment is that for the most part, those Catholics who have lost their faith and have embraced a false religion of secularism, more than likely will never return to the Church and in fact will work against the Church every opportunity they get. We cannot appease them, convince them or cajole them back to the Church even by embracing the secular agenda.
Thus, we must be very clear about what we believe, especially in the culture war areas of Catholic morality and we must put forth a good apologetic (argument or defense) that is attractive academically, socially and personally to keep faithful Catholics, especially our young, in the Church and equipped to defend the Faith and Morals of the Church in order to witness heroically to their faith in the face of persecution, derision, marginalization and even white or red martyrdom. Our concern should be for a purer Church, in terms of the proclamation of Divine Truth, even if it leads to a smaller Church, which isn't the goal, but might well be the result of a strengthened Catholic identity.; August 16, 2020 at 8:43 AM
Fr. Michael Kavanaugh said...: "Certainly younger people who are becoming nones are leaving the Church because the Church today cannot give them a good enough apologetic for her teachings that go against the tide of the dictatorship of relativism."

I don't think this is the case. I think that many teachers of the faith present very good, very compelling explanations of many aspects of the Faith.

What prevents people from responding is that living a life of faith is demanding - it is hard. People who have grown up with relatively easy lives don't feel inclined to take on demanding tasks, let alone demanding lifestyles.

Faith says, in many cases, "You can't have that" or "You can't do that."
The response is, "But I want to, and it's hard to refrain!"
Faith says, "Yes, it is hard, but for the good of the community and your eternal soul (both MUST be included), you can't have/do that!"
The response is, "Because I am accustomed to getting what I want when I want it, I am going to ignore you, Faith, and do what I want."

It has little or nothing to do with which way the priest is facing at mass, what language is used in liturgy, or whether nuns are wearing "traditional" habits - all the typical "solutions" offered by some.

The inability to choose to do what is demanding, to accept that doing what is demanding is good for others, is where the whole of society is struggling. Just look at the crazies who won't do the oh-so hard thing of wearing a mask inside a store for 15 minutes. "I don't want to!" "You can't make me!"; August 16, 2020 at 9:58 AM
Pierre said...: Father McDonald,

If the Council had not occurred and we had remained counter-cultural, the Church would be far stronger today. Young people are attracted to the counter-cultural. I recall when my teachers stopped teaching the Faith almost overnight and all they talked about was love, love, love. You would have to be a dull tool not to realize that Protestants love, Jews love, Muslims love, atheists love, so if that is what you're selling, it is not a compelling message.; August 16, 2020 at 12:23 PM
Anonymous said...: "At that time, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon.
And behold, a Canaanite woman of that district came and called out,
“Have pity on me, Lord, Son of David!
My daughter is tormented by a demon.”
...
Then Jesus said to her in reply,
“O woman, great is your faith!
Let it be done for you as you wish.”
And the woman’s daughter was healed from that hour."

Yes, those outsiders like the Protestants, Jews, Muslims, atheists, and Canaanites are really terrible, awful people.

"O woman, great if your faith!"; August 16, 2020 at 3:10 PM
Anonymous said...: "It has little or nothing to do with which way the priest is facing at mass, what language is used in liturgy, or whether nuns are wearing "traditional" habits - all the typical "solutions" offered by some."

LOL - sure, all losers in denial say things like that; August 16, 2020 at 3:23 PM
rcg said...: The two most confusing subjects in the modern Church are ‘love’ and ‘poverty’. I am totally unable to understand either of those as they are preached or explained by living clergy in context of any scripture or historical texts.; August 16, 2020 at 3:45 PM
johnnyc said...: Fr. McDonald said..... be they clergy or laity my age and older who think the only solution is to toss in the towel and conform to cultural mores

Are you kidding? They didn't 'throw in the towel'. That was the goal of liberal clergy all along.....to get the Church to conform to their leftist political agenda. The seamless garment ideology which was/is political manipulation itself.; August 16, 2020 at 6:36 PM
johnnyc said...: It has little or nothing to do with which way the priest is facing at mass, what language is used in liturgy,

1074 "The liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; it is also the font from which all her power flows."13 It is therefore the privileged place for catechizing the People of God. "Catechesis is intrinsically linked with the whole of liturgical and sacramental activity, for it is in the sacraments, especially in the Eucharist, that Christ Jesus works in fullness for the transformation of men."14

Archbishop Vigano talks about this in his latest teaching.....

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/ap-vigano-christ-the-king-has-been-dethroned-not-only-from-society-but-also-from-the-church

Also in this case, the sweet yoke of Christ is replaced by the hateful tyranny of the Innovators, who with an authoritarianism not dissimilar to that of their secular counterparts impose a new doctrine, a new morality, and a new liturgy in which the only mention of the Kingship of Our Lord is considered as an awkward legacy from another religion, another Church.”; August 16, 2020 at 6:53 PM
Paul McCarthy said...: This is all a waste of time Satan is In full attack mode and physical assault on our religious is coming next. Will we act as Bishop Barron stated and say it’s a matter for the clergy when statues of saints are desecrated and now church’s around the US and Europe are openly burned.

The hell with Vatican II and all it’s ambiguity. We better become Church Militant or all will be lose. I believe Our Lady has lifted her mantle of protection from the Holy Mother church and Satan is taking full advantage of this time.

Pray Pray and Pray some more. Or Lady of Good Hope pray for us all.

I’m done listening to heretics and schismatic. Father Weinandy got himself the Francis Re-education treatment much as Cardinal Muller did with his full 180.

This may not be the end times but it’s getting pretty darn close to something really ugly.

I have zero hope in our Bishops. My hope is in Our Lord and his Bless Mother.; August 16, 2020 at 7:46 PM
Anonymous said...: I knew Rita when she was Director if the Catechumenate in the late 80s in New York. Believe me, she would have never said half of what she says on that silly Pray Tell if she were still getting paid by Cardinal John O'Connor.; August 16, 2020 at 9:37 PM
Anonymous said...: "The End Times"

We have been living in the "End Times" since the Crucifixion and Resurrection. Any talk of the "End Times" starting up now is foolish, as foolish as the entire "Left Behind" approach to understanding eschatology. 1 Cor 10:11: "These things happened to them as an example, and they have been written down as a warning to us, upon whom the end of the ages has come."; August 17, 2020 at 8:36 AM
John Nolan said...: History is not a simple procession of cause and effect. The consequences of Vatican II are clear enough, but the extent to which they can be attributed to the Council itself is a matter of historical judgement. The actual texts of the Council decrees, or even the motives of the Council fathers themselves, are in a large measure irrelevant. I was eleven when the Council met, and fourteen when it closed. It didn't interest me much at the time, although I was aware that my elders saw it as an event of considerable significance, a game-changer in fact. My parish priest, then in his forties, speculated that he might be allowed to get married, and he wasn't entirely joking. (My mother, who had known him for over twenty years, retorted 'Don't kid yourself that you're going to land a dolly-bird. You'll end up with some old boiler.')

It should be remembered that had not Pius XII denied Montini a red hat, it is highly likely that Paul VI's reign would have begun in 1958 and there would have been no Vatican II. We would then have had twenty years of a reforming papacy. Pope Paul was on his own admission more liberal than his predecessor, and was in fact more so than his successors until Pope Francis. The defensive mentality which had characterized the Church since the Enlightenment was already on the way out, although not everybody recognized this at the time (John XXIII probably did).

It is reasonable to assume that many of the reforms now associated with Vatican II would have been implemented without the Council. Theologians would have been freed from the dead hand of the Holy Office. The Curia would have been internationalized. Papal court ceremonial would have been greatly simplified. Relations with the Orthodox, the Protestants and the Jews would have been fostered.

There would have been liturgical reform, although it would have been conducted under the auspices of the Sacred Congregation of Rites and taken more account of what bishops and laity actually wanted. The integrity of the Roman Rite could have been preserved while allowing for local adaptations and a greater use of the vernacular.

Paul VI would still have had to cope with the challenges of the 1960s and 1970s and some may doubt whether he had the character to keep the bark of Peter steady in a rapidly changing world. John Paul II was certainly more resolute, but he inherited a Church in crisis, and most of his efforts had to be directed towards damage-limitation.

In retrospect, it would have been better had Pope Paul not re-convened the Council. It acted as a catalyst, accelerating forces for change which in the end proved to be destructive. One gets the impression that he became a Doctor Frankenstein, enthralled to a monster of his own creation.; August 17, 2020 at 1:11 PM
Pierre said...: John Nolan,

You paint a very credible picture of "what might have been."; August 17, 2020 at 3:41 PM
Paul McCarthy said...: Defending Vatican II is more important then defending the deposit of faith. End of argument for our beloved Bishops of the USCCB.

V for Viganò

Father I know you just love that. 😄; August 18, 2020 at 9:15 PM

southern orders

Translate

Saturday, August 15, 2020

HOW THE INSECURE REACT WHEN THEIR MEME IS CONTRACTED AND TORN TO SHREDS. THE TRUTH BE TOLD, HELL HATH NO FURY WHEN AN INSECURE ACADEMIC’S PREMISE IS TORN TO SHREDS

40 comments:

About Me

Blog Archive