Anyone who lived through the 1960's, 70's and into the 80's knows first hand how those who hijacked the Second Vatican Council with its so-called "spirit" would use nasty, denigrating tactics against those who were traditional and orthodox.
I know that many men were refused entry into priestly formation programs or expelled from them if they insisted on a male only priesthood, loved popular devotions like adoration, Benediction, the Holy Rosary, etc, enjoyed the clarity of the Baltimore Catechism and found Gregorian Chant and Latin preferable to what is in most parishes today.
They were labeled "rigid" and "pre-Vatican II and thus were considered psychologically compromised and theologically living in the past, another psychological club to hit them over the head and kill them if need be.
Since progressives in high places have returned us to the 1960's and 70's in this regard and a biblical hermaneutic that equates faithful, orthodox, canon law abiding Bishops and priests and laity with Jewish Pharisees (a misuse of the Scriptures, by the way, since Pharisees are of the Old Dispensation and Catholics are not Pharisees as we are of the new Dispensation by virtue of the Sacrament of Initiation) we see the passive-aggressive tactic to neutralize and destroy orthodox opposition.
This article by Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, MD entitled "The Cost of Passive-Aggressive Anger from the Vatican and the Hierarchy (press title for article) is very timely and hits the nail on the head, not only for today, but what happened in the 1960's and 70's to faithful, orthodox, canon law abiding Catholics.
19 comments:
Excellent article. Pope Francis has really opened himself up to accusations that he is a major league hypocrite, slobbering over people who could care less about the Catholic Church while making nasty and vicious comments about faithful Catholics,
Please, Mark Thomas, spare us your ultra-montantist drivel on papal authority.
We get mad when Francis and his fellow travelers psychanalyze their critics as “neurotic” and “rigid” and “little monsters”. Should we now turn around and label them as passive aggressive? Isn’t there enough name calling inside the Church? Jesus told us to make disciples not complain about each other.
"Pope Francis has really opened himself up to accusations that he is a major league hypocrite, slobbering over people who could care less about the Catholic Church while making nasty and vicious comments about faithful Catholics,..."
How can you, of all posters here, complain about people making nasty comments is astounding and amazing...
Bernard Fischer,
Santita should set a good example for us to follow. Can you imagine Pius XII or John XXIII acting this way?
Anonymous (Kavanaugh) at 1:47, thanks for the laughs. I was pointing out Santita's modus operandi which is well documented, ergo, facts, not opinion.
Father McDonald said..."Anyone who lived through the 1960's, 70's and into the 80's knows first hand how those who hijacked the Second Vatican Council with its so-called "spirit"..."
Was Vatican II hijacked? Who "hijacked" Vatican II?
Pope Blessed Paul VI insisted that his radical reforms flowed from Vatican II.
Pope Saint John Paul II insisted that Vatican II informed his Pontificate. Pope Saint John Paul II insisted that his reforms...his approach to ecumenism...the Assisi meetings...
...praying and worshiping in Protestant churches, synagogues, and mosques flowed from his understanding of Vatican II.
==================================================
Cardinals and bishops promoted by Rome insisted that ugly, "wreckovated" churches reflected Vatican II's new understanding of liturgy and spirituality.
I question the narrative that Vatican II was "hijacked."
Perhaps Vatican II has been enacted. Perhaps that is the problem.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Anonymous @ 1:47 -
Your argument isn't well founded. The Pope making public statements as a public and pastoral figure vs. heated debate on an internet comment page are in no way comparable. Also, as you make yourself sound like a regular reader of this blog, why hide behind "Anonymous"? If you post under another name, why not just consistently own your viewpoint?
As for the progressives, in time, they will pass or, become dissatisfied with the lack of constant change that they crave and just move on.
And Mark Thomas - I have to agree with TJM. While it is not my place to tell people not to post, being considerate of others with limited, concise feedback would be greatly appreaciated. I've given up trying to join some of the conversations on this blog. Your posts are so numerous and so lengthy with quotes, dots, hyperlinks and sign-off best wishes that I've already mistaken others comments for your own as I can't always tell where they end.
Nasty comments from TJM or nasty comments from Pope Francis are nasty comments.
The argument is entirely well-founded.
Why hide behind "ByzRC"?
ByzRC,
Anonymous is Kavanaugh's nom de plume when he wants to be extra nasty
Anonymous @ 4:32, Kavanaugh, whomever...
How is the argument well-founded? Is TJM being quoted globally as a moral authority? Note: I am making no statements as to TJM's faith or morals though my sense is, they are high.
Why hide behind "ByzRC"? Because, unless we're going to meet for coffee, drinks or, a cigar (which, realistically, is not likely to happen) why not? I am neither a public nor pastoral figure. My comments, however, are all associated with my blog name (with the exception of one cell phone blunder).
Last - what is nasty about what TJM stated? While the language used is consistent with how men talk, he is not gossiping or, creating fiction.
My sense is, we're about to go round and round and round and round on this.
Since when does comment have to come from a global moral authority to be nasty? Answer: It doesn't
Why complain that I "hide" behind "Anonymous" and then rationalize your hiding behind ByzRC? "ByzRC" is no more revelatory of your identity than "Anonymous" is of mine.
What's nasty about TJM's comments? Try: "he is a major league hypocrite" and he is "slobbering over people who could care less about the Catholic Church" for starters.
Anonymous (Kavanaugh),
I reached a logical conclusion after tying together Santita's public statements. Try it, you might have an ephiphany
"My nastiness is logical."
Yes, to you, I am sure it is.
Anonymous (Kavanaugh),
I know from experience that you are unable to draw a logical inference and you NEVER respond to the point at hand in a reasonaned way. You're kind of amusing
TJM - You're not.
TJM,
I was thinking both amusing and boring.
I cannot remember an original contribution from Anonymous/Kavanaugh. If there have been original contributions, they are so few in number that I do not remember them. Generally, it's always the same thing, lie-in-wait to provide unsolicited criticism and turn a discussion into a perceived one-sided teaching moment with a tone that I, at times, find to be uncharitable and offensive.
There is nothing wrong with commenting under a pseudonym. What leaves a nasty taste is when someone who usually blogs under his own name reverts to anonymity in order to trade insults or to troll.
We may not have heard from Wipo of Mainz recently, but I doubt if even Mark Thomas really thinks he is a 12th century German chronicler.
Maybe the thing to do is stop worrying so much about WHO posts what and simply responding to WHAT is posted.
It's really rather easy to do...
We may not have heard from Wipo of Mainz recently, but I doubt if even Mark Thomas really thinks he is a 12th century German chronicler.
John - you're too much, buddy. This really cracked me up.
Post a Comment