Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: jo kus
"There is even less clamoring for the Novus Ordo (declining attendance), or priests that want to celebrate it(priest shortage)."

A false parallelism. To entirely blame the Novus Ordo for the lack of attendance or priestly shortages is a false presumption.

The stated purpose of the Novus Ordo was to reinvigorate the Mass, encourage "active participation" and appeal to Protestants. The Novus Ordo did not have the desired effect.

Because these developed parallel doesn't mean that one contributed to the other.

It also doesn't mean they happened independently of one another.

The problems that so many mention that followed Vatican 2 were already within the Church and society.

And Vatican II blew the lid off of them and allowed them free reign in the Church.

Do you blame the sexual revolution on Vatican 2, also?

Had the Church remained firm and loosened none of the disciplines at the time, I believe the sexual revolution would have been restrained, especially among Catholics.

And the Vietnam protests?

No. That situation was mainly Paul VI's fault. His meddling in affairs while being suckered by Metropolitan Nikodim allowed the VC to re-arm for the Tet Offensive. Paul VI cost the U.S. that war.

Don't you think society itself had something to do with overthrowing authority and doing away with the reverant?

And the Church allowed itself to be dictated to by the society.

Why do you think the Church felt the need to write "The Church in the Modern World?" Because the Church was losing relevance - BEFORE Vatican 2.

As Malcolm Muggeridge stated just before Vatican II the world was ready to convert to Catholicism and suddenly The Catholic Church converted to the World. Paul VI prior to the council when he was Pius XII's secretary stated that the Church was never in finer shape. The Church didn't feel the need to write "the Church in the Modern World" modernists in the Church felt the need to write it.

I would say the problems are more complex than your simple conclusion that the changing of the Mass to the vernacular and putting in inclusive language is behind all of the Church's problems.

The Novus Ordo is not the Traditional Latin Mass put into the vernacular. To compare the two and see which one expresses the doctrine of the Church better is like night and day.

I disagree with that liturgical move, but to say it is THE cause of the problem doesn't make sense.

I didn't say that. I responded to the assertion that no one is clamoring for the TLM. As you said, the problems existed in the Church prior to Vatican II. But Vatican II ended all resistance to those problems.

I would point more to the dissent within the American Church in implementing ACTUAL Vatican 2.

Had there been no Vatican II,there would not have been a "spirit of Vatican II" so the excuse for the dissent would not be there. Plus, this a worldwide problem, not an exclusively American one. And as a final point, Vatican II did not mandate the Novus Ordo. So an actual implementation of Vatican II could happen while scrapping the NO.

46 posted on 05/02/2005 5:10:40 PM PDT by Gerard.P (The lips of liberals drip with honey while their hands drip with blood--Bishop Williamson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]


To: Gerard.P

"His {Paul VI's} meddling in affairs while being suckered by Metropolitan Nikodim allowed the VC to re-arm for the Tet Offensive. Paul VI cost the U.S. that war."

I think we are done talking, if you actually believe that baloney. I don't know think I have never heard a more ridiculous statement.

Regards


70 posted on 05/02/2005 8:42:58 PM PDT by jo kus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

To: Gerard.P
Had there been no Vatican II,there would not have been a "spirit of Vatican II" so the excuse for the dissent would not be there.

I'm going to disagree in part here.

There *would* have been a spirit - of modernism, of destruction, of secular accomodation. It would have been called something else, but it would have existed.

As someone once observed, at the Council the Church opened the windows to the world at the precise moment the world went mad - the 1960's. Had the Church kept the windows closed, the world still would have gone made - it was already on the way in the 50's, and the seeds were long in germination within the Church itself.

It might have taken slightly different forms and intensity - perhaps a little diminished - but I think it foolish to pretend that we could have ridden out the foul vapors of the 60s and 70's unaffected.

Again, the danger is in simply writing off the Council because of what happened afterwards. I am willing to concede some perhaps unfelicitous langauge in Dignitatis Humanae, but the Council itself said and affirmed laudable things, to be read in continuity of the tradition of the Church.

One of the missed opportunities was in moral theology, which as a growing number of prelates realized was in a neo-Thomist rut by the 50's - too much casuistry, not enough virtue or beatitudes. Yet the Council failed to flesh out what a real renewal of moral theology should look like, and as a result the proportionalists ran rampant, throwing out not only baby and bathwater, but bathtub as well.

94 posted on 05/02/2005 10:46:15 PM PDT by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

To: Gerard.P; BlackElk
Paul VI cost the U.S. that war.

Not MacNamara's delusions? Not LBJ's idiocy, setting himself up as a field/tactical CinC?

Really?

285 posted on 05/03/2005 6:40:18 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson