Sunday, February 17, 2019

IS THE POLYANNA CHURCH OF POST VATICAN II INCAPABLE OF CONFRONTING CONCUPISCENCE AND BECAUSE OF IT DOES IT ENCOURAGE IT?


Anthony Cusack writes this in a tweet. I happen to agree with him but I also know that there were scandals in the pre-Vatican II Church but kept quiet from the faithful:

The fall of McCarrick from the greatest rank of power in the Church sounds the death knell of something much larger: the whole Vatican II mania with accompanying Catholic amnesia forgetful of the moral law along with the liturgy. Lex orandi est lex vivendi.

My comments

LET'S FACE IT, CONCUPISCENCE IS A HUMAN PROBLEM RESULTING FROM THE DISORDERS THAT FLOW FROM ORIGINAL SIN. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE PRE-VATICAN II CHURCH KNEW THIS AND OFFERED ACTUAL MEDICINE TO COMBAT THIS SPIRITUAL DISEASE, DISCIPLINE, ASCETICISM AND STRICT MORAL TEACHINGS.

VATICAN II TRIED TO BUILD A TOWER TO HEAVEN AND MAKE HEAVEN ON EARTH AND ILLIMINATED MUCH OF THE CHURCH'S GREAT DISICIPLINE, ASCETISM, MORAL CERTITUDE AND MERCY WITHOUT JUSTICE.

IT IS A POLYANNA CHURCH WHICH HAS FAILED CATHOLICS MISERABLY AND LED TO THE LOSS OF MORAL AUTHORITY OF THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH AND THE BLEEDING OF CATHOLICS TO OTHER RELIGIONS OR NON.

IT IS TIME FOR A RESTORATION AND TIME IS RUNNING OUT TO DO IT!

52 comments:

Anonymous said...

Didn't the legion of Christ offer those good prevatican ii things?, and yet they still had Maciel....

Anonymous said...

All of those who committed sexual abuse prior to Vatican II were formed when the Church ..."OFFERED ACTUAL MEDICINE TO COMBAT THIS SPIRITUAL DISEASE, DISCIPLINE, ASCETICISM AND STRICT MORAL TEACHINGS."

Much of the abuse committed in the 10 or 15 years after Vatican II was committed by people formed in the purportedly "gool ol' days" prior to that Council.

Blaming Vatican II just doesn't make much sense.

Dan said...

Who needs concupiscence when we've got to worry about those sins against the environment?

TJM said...

Anonymous "You Know Who"

Of course there were childish, puerile clerics trained prior to Vatican Disaster II and we have childish, puerile clerics who were trained After Vatican Disaster II posting on this very blog. The difference being, the Church prior to Vatican Disaster II didn't accompany, alibi, or suggest these behaviors should be normative, unlike that loudmouth gay apologist, "Father" Reese.

Anonymous said...

So, homily today on the Beatitudes reading by our good Deacon extolled a book written by “...the great contemporary Jesuit, Fr. James Martin” written about saints and how they interact with his (Martin’s) own life and all the good he has accomplished.
I didn’t receive Holy Communion and left church nauseated—still am. Why did I even go...to fulfill an “obligation”?

Anonymous said...

Oh, yes, before Vatican Two the abusers were given alibis, they were shifted from place to place, they were "sternly" warned.

Our response now is 100 percent more appropriate and effective. Denying this is a fantasy.

TJM said...

Anonymous Kavanaugh,

LOL - our response now was forced on us by the media and PF is still stonewalling, but he does believe in Global Warming!!

Anonymous said...

The media, PF, Global Warming - your attempt at distraction is obvious.

The FACT remains that, in the "Glory Days" pre-Vatican II, there was sexual abuse carried out by clergy formed under, "...DISCIPLINE, ASCETICISM AND STRICT MORAL TEACHINGS."

No amount of LOL-ing or raising wholly unrelated matters can change that FACT.

"Blame Vatican II" is a bogus argument.

Dan said...

How about if we just blame VII for the decline in the Catholic faith and practice and belief among the laity? Is that better Anonymous?

Unknown said...

Illiminated [sic], "ascetism" [sic], "non" [sic] et ainsi de suite.

Victor said...

'"Blame Vatican II" is a bogus argument.'
Actually Anonymous is right to say that perversions among clerics existed before V2. After all, sin has existed since Adam whose second chance given by God we commemorate this week in the EF. But there are huge differences. One is in the punitive measures taken before V2, such as when some men found acting out their same sex perversions were handed over to the secular authorities for corrective measures, and some were very severe.
But the biggest difference is in the sheer number per capita of perversions before and after V2 among the clergy. With the new morality brought in by V2, what was once considered perverse became easily regarded as a virtue, if not something just not very serious. One has to just listen to the pope speak about how trivial sins below the belt are.

Anonymous said...

Dan, you can blame Winken, Blinken, and Nod if you like.

Cheers!

Gene said...

T U L I P it is real theology. Try it.

Dan said...

It's just a blog Unknown. And if you were fully enlightened you would know that it is politically incorrect and patriarchal,et ainsi de suite, to point out grammatical errors.

All the Universities have adopted this new thinking.

Gene said...

Generally associated with sexual desire, the Calvinist/Lutheran theological understanding is a bit broader. It is the relentless desire of our will, born of original sin, to have or be those things that are not in harmony with God's will. For Augustine, sexual desire is so elemental that it becomes the basis for all other sinful desires, for everything that continues to separate us from the will of God.
It means that unredeemed man will, inevitably, always choose the self over God's will.

TJM said...

Anonymous Kavanaugh,

Still gleefully invested in the post Vatican Disaster II meltdown in the Faith and Catholic practice. Satan thanks you!

Cheers!!!

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous said..."The FACT remains that, in the "Glory Days" pre-Vatican II, there was sexual abuse carried out by clergy formed under, "...DISCIPLINE, ASCETICISM AND STRICT MORAL TEACHINGS."

Upon examination of lists supplied by dioceses of priests who were accused credibly of sexual abuse, the following has been established:

-- A high percentage of said priests were ordained prior Vatican II.

-- Among priests accused during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, almost every one had been raised in the "pre-Vatican II Church."

-- Although the Pennsylvania Report is misleading trash, one priest after another listed in that report had been ordained prior to Vatican II.

The amount of priests charged with sexual abuse is microscopic. But within that realm, a high percentage of said priests received ordination prior to Vatican II.

The notion that the sexual abuse problem among priests is a "post-Vatican II, laxed rules, Novus Ordo, New Church" problem doesn't hold water.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

John Nolan said...

What seems to be incontrovertible fact is that a) most clerical sexual delicts were homosexual in nature and b) they peaked in the 1970s and 1980s and declined sharply thereafter.

The 1970s saw the full impact of the 1960s reforms, under a pope (Paul VI) whose last ten years seem to have been marked by disillusion, even despair. The first ten years of John Paul II's papacy were indeed dynamic, but focused more on the international situation and did little to address the crisis in the Church.

Whether Vatican II was the game-changer or merely a catalyst is open to debate. But it cannot be taken out of the equation altogether for ideological reasons, as Anonymous-Kavanaugh is keen to do.

TJM said...

MT,

When are YOU going to respond about what PF has done to punish the clerical miscreants caught participating in a cocaine fueled gay sex orgy at the Vatican? No talking points handy to cut and paste?

Anonymous said...

If Vatican II "cannot be taken out of the equation altogether" then show the evidence, not the anecdotes, not the "post hoc" logical fallacy, that it belongs there.

John Nolan said...

Anonymous Kavanaugh

Are you suggesting that the Church of the 1970s had nothing to do with Vatican II? Those who preached unceasingly from the progressive camp in those years didn't seem to have any doubts on that score.

As I said, it's a matter for legitimate discussion. What are your reasons for excluding something that actually happened, and according to both its defenders and its detractors was of considerable import, from being discussed and evaluated?

The Second Vatican Council, for good or ill, is not an 'anecdote'. Not that anecdotal evidence can simply be disregarded. But then, you are an ideologue, and ideologues make very poor historians.

TJM said...

Anonymous Kavanaugh,

You appear to have failed logic and common sense. You are no match for John Nolan. Well we do know a few things that are verifiable. Since Vatican Disaster II and the implementation of the OF, millions of American Catholics no longer go to Church, attendance at Sunday Mass has dropped off dramatically, collections are way done, and parishes are closing in record numbers. The American hierarchy and incurious priests do not seem to want to explore what went wrong!!! That's arrogance and clericalism on steroids. Apres moi, le deluge.

Cheers!

Anonymous said...

Yes, it is a matter of matter for discussion. I'm not "excluding" anything. What I'm looking for is the evidence that, as many here claim, Vatican Two is the cause, or even a significant cause, of the list of the difficult circumstances in which the Church finds herself today.

I note that most of those circumstances are blamed on Vatican Two by posters here with little or, usually, no evidence offered, as Mr. TJM has just done in his post at 3:07.

Historians who accept claims with no evidence are not historians of any kind.

TJM said...

Anonymous Kavanaugh,

LOL!!!! Well I would like to hear what a lefty, ideologue has to say about:

"Since Vatican Disaster II and the implementation of the OF, millions of American Catholics no longer go to Church, attendance at Sunday Mass has dropped off dramatically, collections are way done, and parishes are closing in record numbers."

Bad luck? Terrible coincidence? It's the Catholic people that are the problem, not our new products?

Maybe you have seen one, but I have NEVER seen any official Church inquiry or study into why all of these terrible things happened and are continuing to happen. My guess is they do not want to conduct such a study because they know it would be an indictment of what they did (and perhaps they are lazy too).

Dan said...

Let's see, Vatican II occurs and since then there has been a major decline in vocations and weekly mass attendance and in the receiving of the sacrament of reconciliation.

I know of members in my own family who never felt the new and improved mass was even Catholic and who ultimately drifted away.

History and statistics ARE there anonymous. What exactly would convince you?

Anonymous said...

You see, Mr TJM, you have just given us one of the most wonderful examples of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy.

You admit you have NEVER seen a study to corroborate your claims, but, since the issues you note arose after Vatican Two, then you conclude that that council must be the cause.

That with any evidence to show a causal relationship.

TJM said...

Father Dan,

Anonymous Kavanaugh obviously learned only one latin phrase: post hoc ergo propter hoc."

I guess he never heard of circumstantial evidence which can actually be better than direct evidence at times. For example, "I did not see Kavanaugh walking across the snow, but upon further observation his footprints were there."

I think it is a reasonable inference that when you introduce massive changes in the Faith and then 5 or 10 years later, far less people are practicing the Faith, those changes just might have had something to do with it. But contumacious Churchmen never want to examine facts or factors which make them look bad or stupid, or both. I think it is also reasonable to assume the Church undertook no such studies for the same reasons.

Anonymous said...

Dan, What you have described is, at this point, coincidence, "correspondence in nature or in time of occurrence."

Showing a causal relationship between Vatican Two and what you describe remains.

The "further observation" Mr TJM speaks of is the showing of the link between the two.

Gene said...

Lawyer: "Now, Mr. Smith, did you see Mr. Jones bite off the ear of Bill Davis?"

Mr. Smith: "No, Sir, I did not."

Lawyer: "Well, then, how can you sit there and tell this court that you know for a fact he did it?"

Mr. Smith: "Well, Sir, I seen him spit it out."

TJM said...

Anonymous Kavanaugh,

Sounds like you lack a scientific approach to things, like the High Priest of the Global Warming Religion, Al Gore. You do not want to know about the root causes of modern Catholicism's failures,because you are invested in the failure that is post Vatican Disaster II Catholicism. You could care less about the souls and salvation of the folks in the pew. You are solely concerned with what is convenient and easy for you - fake Catholicism. Satan appreciates your efforts on his behalf.

Anonymous 2 said...

On the post hoc propter hoc issue the following offers food for thought:

https://catholicherald.co.uk/issues/march-27th-2015/its-not-vatican-iis-fault/

Dan said...

And of course historians NEVER use "correspondence in nature or in time of occurrence" in making their judgements, so really it's best to NEVER make any judgements. Right Anonoymous?

Dan said...

Anonymous, may I further point out that historians use exactly the kind of data that is already available to Catholics wanting to make a judgement about VII. For example: census data concerning number of Jewish families in Berlin pre and post WW2, and testimony of those who lived through it.

Of course it's ONLY been 50 or so years since VII, so perhaps you are suggesting this is not long enough to REALLY judge things.

Fine.

Since you are so intelligent and conscientious, I am sure you will wait until after the year 2070 to decide such things as "Trump BAD, Obama GOOD."

John Nolan said...

In 1973 the English Catholic writer John Eppstein wondered how a 2000 year old supernaturally-orientated institution that was 'the most solid and venerable pillar of civilization' was transformed, almost overnight, into an organization where every form of disorder and disorientation 'in the fields of morals, faith, authority and worship' was not only tolerated, but encouraged.

At about the same time, Malcolm Muggeridge (not then a Catholic) wondered why the Catholic Church was embarking on a reformation of its own just when Luther's 16th century reformation was 'running into the sand'.

In 1971 a number of British academics and literary figures, many of them non-Catholic, signed an open letter to Paul VI voicing their concern that the cultural patrimony of the Roman Rite appeared to have been abandoned. The result was the so-called 'Agatha Christie indult' allowing the celebration of the old Mass in certain circumstances. The same pontiff, in an extraordinary address on Advent Sunday 1969 had lamented the loss of much of the Church's liturgical heritage, including Gregorian Chant, but maintained it was a price worth paying to achieve the 'renewal' demanded by the Council.

Every innovator, every 'creative' liturgist (and there were plenty around at that time) justified his actions by referring back to Vatican II. Of course the currents which surfaced in the years 1962 to 1965 had been around for some time. Pius XII was aware of them, and even endorsed some of them. But he believed that the wilder excesses could be checked by the exercise of his own authority. There have been numerous books written about the Council, and no-one seriously argues that it wasn't at the very least a catalyst for far-reaching change.

Anonymous/Kavanaugh reminds me of Mikhail Gorbachev. He could see that the Soviet Union was failing both economically and politically. But he could not bring himself to accept that the ideological concept of Marxism-Leninism was the root cause of this failure. A/K is similarly blinkered. There's no point in telling him that historical cause and effect can't be proved in the same way as can a scientific theory, since he won't listen, and doesn't want to listen.

rcg said...

Vatican II didn’t write itself. So it would not be surprising to discover that insurgent and corrupt authors had infiltrated high levels of the Church to create the opportunity to write themselves a license for the things they wanted to do. It is a distinctly dishonest application of scientific method to ignore an apparent cause and to avoid testing it as a hypothesis. A corollary that should also be examined is the assumption that the society changed so broadly and thoroughly that the Church merely suffered the same results as every other institution. Since one role of the Church is to help men survive zeitgeist and enter heaven it seems at least prudent to evaluate the current mode versus that mission and see if it can be improved or replaced. The hardened resistance to this self examination is what makes people suspicious of what Church leaders are up to.

TJM said...

Father Dan,

I would reverse it to: Trump Good Obama Bad but the abortion droolers here feel the exact opposite because Moloch must be appeased.

Dan said...

TJM, me too, but I think Anonymous is saying that he, you, and I, can not make any judgements until over 50 years have passed and historians decided for us.

Anonymous said...

"And of course historians NEVER use "correspondence in nature or in time of occurrence" in making their judgements, so really it's best to NEVER make any judgements. Right Anonoymous?"

Correspondence is not causality.

If an historian notes what he/she thinks is a correspondence, he/she forms an hypothesis, such as "Vatican Two caused a drop in Mass attendance, a drop in Church donations, a drop in vocations to the priesthood and religious life."

Then the historian will seek evidence that links Vatican Two with the aforementioned concerns.

That's right.

You can make any judgment at any time. But you are then obliged to show, based on evidence, that your judgment is correct.

TJM said...

Dan,

Well many modern "historians" are lefty shills

Dan said...

Anonymous, you are awfully quiet. Please continue the adult discussion on the inability to judge historic events.

Dan said...

Wth counts as evidence in your opinion? Seems like you've made up your mind NOT to look at evidence.

Dan said...

Anyway A, I hope you are intellectually consistent and honest enough not to have made any judgements concerning presidents, global warming, media bias, or Francis.

rcg said...

A scientist may observe the death of a population with some detachment. A shepherd does not. An intelligent shepherd will apply knowledge to the situation as quickly as he can to ensure the best result for as many as possible. We have a situation where the shepherds are refusing to address the hole in the fence so as to not embarrass the one who made it. This is not science. It is a lie.

Dan said...

Final comment. A, your position seems entirely foolish to me because a historian would use evidence such as decline in vocations, decline in mass attendance, and testimony of people who lived through an event to SHOW causality. The evidence is already in front of our eyes.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous2

Thanks for the link. Good show. Whatever the causes and effects of Vatican II, one shouldn't dismiss from consideration that whatever is behind what has transpired since then is a bit more Daedalean than what to our mind seems a reasonable conclusion, but which excludes other contributory factors. We can only wonder how things might have been had no Council been called, or where we would be if it had been more restrained and less ambitious in what it had hoped to accomplish.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

We have a microcosm, easily studied, in the SSPX in terms of no Vatican II. Do they fair better in terms of the health of their clergy or worse?

John Nolan said...

Actually, an historian does not start with a hypothesis and then look for evidence to confirm it. He starts with the evidence which may then lead him to certain conclusions. Different historians may reach different conclusions based on the same evidence. It's a matter of interpretation.

Causality is largely a matter of deduction. One event may be followed by another without any obvious or provable connection between the two; links can be tenuous; most events cannot be assigned to a single cause and people can act from a number of motives. Events (and this is important) can have unintended consequences. Assigning relative importance to causes is essentially speculative.

In his highly-acclaimed and revisionist chronicle of the French Revolution 'Citizens' (1989) Simon Schama's overall judgement on the Revolution is a damning one. Most critics in Britain and America agreed with this judgement; the French, hardly surprisingly, did not. Even after nearly 900 pages a gifted historian cannot 'prove' that his judgement is 'correct'.

Dan said...

Oh noes! Fr.M is providing more evidence that a historian might use to provide a causal link. Blank out your minds. Be sure not to make any judgements. Don't even make a judgement about making judgements untal ALL the evidence is in about making judgments.

TJM said...

I suspect if the Council had not taken place, the Church would have remained an important force in most Catholics lives. However, as the sexual revolution of the 1960s gained force, it may be that some Catholics who embraced the new hedonism would have fallen away. I also think (thus it is NOT a fact) that if the Council had taken place in the mid-1950s, the results would have been more constrained and any changes made less radical and more orderly in keeping with the zeitgeist of the 1950s. The 1960s was probably the worst possible time to hold the Council with revolutionary forces sweeping throughout almost all institutions.

Anonymous said...

Historians do use the hypothesis/answer methodology.

"As you study historical events, you will discover that things do not simply ‘happen’ without reason. Historical events are caused by things that occurred before them. Also, historical events create changes that have consequences long after the event is over."

In studying an historical event, the researcher may hypothesize: "The indigenous people of Australia were treated as second-class citizens until the 1960’s..." He/She may then suggest that the reason for this was "the denial of basic political rights by State and Federal governments."

At which time the researcher will find (or not find) that Australian State and Federal governments did (or did not) deny basic political rights to indigenous people.

Historians may not call this the "Scientific Method," but it is that method which many follow in providing arguments, based on evidence, for their assertions.

TJM, probably in spite of himself, has made a start at a serious consideration of the current circumstances in which the Church finds herself. Many forces were involved in the massive changes that occurred in Western cultures in the 50's, 60's and 70's. Some would suggest that many of these forces were birthed in the Enlightenment when we came to realize that, among other things, every person had rights that did not originate with the will of a sovereign. Long before that, Magna Carta - "The Great Charter of the Liberties" - began the process. James I and Charles I worked to suppress the discussion of Magna Carta, as did Pope Innocent III who declared that it was ‘null, and void of all validity for ever’.

Dan said...

Anonymous your knowledge is astounding. My only concern now is when one reads historians in order to decide how to judge an historic event such as VII, when those historians differ in their opinions, can one make a judgment? If so, can one just skip reading historians and make a judgement? If so, why are you arguing that we can"t judge now? Especially since there ARE some commentaries on VII already out there.

Anonymous said...

Dan - All my life I have read historians who hold differing opinions regarding the causes and effects of historical events.

Was the cause of the fall of the Roman empire the invasion by barbarian tribes, the over-reliance on slave labor, the increase in the influence of the Eastern empire, military overspending, corruption in the government, the rise of Christianity, the inclusion of subjugated people in the Roman legions, unemployment, urban decay, inflation, or just lead pipes in Rome's water system?

All seem plausible. Whatever shall we conclude?

One can skip reading historians and make a judgment, but I would suggest that is not a wise path to travel.