Cardinal Baldisseri ...

Date: 
Saturday, November 3, 2018 - 23:15
Article link: 

 

Donna Bethell (formerly known as Rose Marie) said...

Does it strike anyone else as strange that almost 60 years ago, just when the world was on the verge of globalization in communications, travel, and trade, the only truly global organization, the Roman Catholic Church, had a common language -- and dropped it!

I was at last starting to study Latin when the Council opened in 1962. By the end of that school year, Latin had all but disappeared from the Mass and I was furious. Within a couple of years, everything else went, too: reverence and decorum,sacred music and the organ, devotions, Confession, Benediction, fasting and abstinence. The ravaging was capped by the Novus Ordo, but by then there was hardly anything of the ancient liturgy and practice left to replace. This was all the greatest act of clericalism in the history of the Church, even while they were telling us that Vatican II had opened the "age of the laity." Lies. All of it lies. And we have been drowning in lies ever since.

May Mary's Immaculate Heart triumph!

cogito said...

The latest Vatian villain, clericalism, entered the Church when the Novus Ordo placed the priest/presider between us and God as the focal point for Mass-goers. Bring back ad orientem. Cdl. Sarah for pope.

 

vetusta ecclesia said...

How much I agree with Donna Bethell. I am in my 70s and regard the majority of my life as having been a great trahison des clercs

 

orate fratman said...

A Billion upvotes to Donna Bethell!

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

The heterodoxic praxis in The Vatican is a reflection of the praxis of the Establishment Deep State in Washington.

Dear Father, you may not recall this but there were sizable majorities amongst liberals and conservatives not to bail out the Banksters after they caused the economic collapse in America but The Establishment - led by Barack Obama - did bail them out and the economy has not recovered since then.

ABS considers the New Theologians, who have control of The Church, are not unlike the Establishment Deep State in Washington (Which considered us malign deplorables) in that the laity expect and demand Orthodoxy from the powerful but the powerful (Which considers us benighted pharisees) know they can not be unseated anymore than the establishment deep state in Washington can be unseated and so the New Theology establishment just does what it desires and no longer even pretends it is doing the job it is supposed to be doing.

The arrogance of both the secular and sacred establishment deep state is sickening but, of course, the arrogance of the Vatican authorities is far more damaging and consequential as souls are involved.

 

 
Thomas said...

There's a lengthy article on Rorate Caeli by John R. T. Lamont which seems to me capture the deeper causes of our current situation better than almost anything I have read. He concludes:

"The chaos that engulfed the Church in the 1960s and 1970s was probably due in large part to rebellion against the tyrannical exercise of authority that had been inflicted on clergy and religious prior to the 1960s. Like other revolutions recorded by history, however, this revolt against tyranny did not lead to the triumph of freedom. Instead, it produced a more far-reaching and thorough tyranny, by destroying the elements of the ancien régime that had placed limits on the power of superiors ...

"The progressive faction that seized power … had its own programme and ideology that demanded total adherence, and that justified the ruthless suppression of opposition. The tools of psychological control and oppression that had been learned by the progressives in their own formation were put to most effective use, and applied more sweepingly than they had ever been in the past -- the difference between the two regimes being rather like the difference between the Okhrana and the Cheka.

"Part of the progressive ideology was the falsity and harmfulness of traditional Catholic sexual teaching; the effect of this tenet on the sexual abuse crisis need not be laboured. But it would be a mistake to think that progressivism as such is responsible for this crisis, and that its defeat would solve the problem. The roots of the crisis go further back, and require a reform of attitudes to law and authority in every part of the Church."

(https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2018/10/tyranny-and-sexual-abuse-in-ca...)

This is remarkably clear sighted in my humble opinion. Unlike many in the tradosphere he has put his finger on the truth that there was indeed a great need for reform in the Church, which had reached fever pitch by the mid twentieth century. Our problems, including the abuse crisis, did not begin in 1962.

Older priests I trust have told me genuinely shocking experiences of cruelty and uncharity from superiors in their youth, which is often what drives prejudice against "going back to the old ways". Unfortunately what we have right now is simply the same unreformed authoritarianism but now being used to push heresy. All revolutionaries become dictators.

One might suggest too that we did and still do need a genuine development of doctrine in so many ways, and that the roots of that crisis also go back a long way before Vatican II. As you frequently point out yourself, Father, the same is true in matters of liturgy. The answers do not lie in simply winding the clock back, but in bringing out of the Lord's store house treasures both old and new (Matthew 13:52).

Figulus said...

Thank you Father. And thank you, Thomas.

 

 

 

 

 

Own comment: 

I echo the point that Donna Bethell (formerly known as Rose Marie) makes and note that when the Church tries to be modern, She will always be behind the times. When She stays true to Her divine mission, then She is really timeless.

As to the point that Thomas made, I am always extremely skeptical whenever anyone mentions that there was a need for reform prior tio Vatican II. In a sense there was, because the 1950s had been a noveltising decade and we needed to return to a greater respect for Tradition, and in fact, this can be taken back to the 1910s with the reform of the Roman Breviary.

Whatever reforms needed to be made could have been done along the lines of respecting Apostolic Traditions. Stories of cruelty and uncharity from superiors pre-Vatican II can be multiplied by the hundreds when it comes to similar cruelty after the Council. The fact remains that seminaries are not, were not, and never have been prisons. If they were full it is not because we had a generation of people who loved torture and then after the Second Vatican Council realised they loved sensual desires instead.

As for the sexual abuse crisis starting in 1962, nobody I know has ever claimed that. There were rules for dealing with sexual abuse, which meant that there were abusive priests to begin with or the rules would never had been devised in the first place. With Vatican II, however, came the idea that anything that was forbidden could be allowed, in particular as with regards to sexual purity. The new code of Canon Law does not even punish priests for repeatedly breaking their vows of chastity - if their counterpart is an adult -, whereas the old one did. Then there is the fact that people who committed these sins were obviously not following the orders of their superiors, since the Church pre-Vatican II was very clear on sexual purity.

The article he refers to deals primarily with how the Jesuits saw any form of obedience as virtuous, and then makes the case that this was responsible for the sexual abuse scandal because it facilitated people doing uncritical thinking. However, the fact that they hid these acts from public view must surely tell us that they were not that uncritical in their thinking, and that they knew what they were doing was wrong. I do not, however, dispute that the Jesuit view of authority and obedience is decidedly problematic, and I would go as far as saying even un-Christian, for reasons the author states better than I can do here, while contrasting them with those of St. Thomas Aquinas.

We can blame the pre-Vatican II period for a lot of things, but sexual licentuousness is not one of them. There cannot have been any Catholic who did not know that sodomy was against both the laws of God and the laws of the Church.

While I agree with the original author, John Lamont, that we lost something in the move to counter the protestant revolt, as we always lose something when limitations are brought in to curtail excess, it is a far cry from that to arguing that we can draw a straight line from the Catholic Counter-Reformation to the Novus Ordo sex abuse scandal, and to say that the latter is caused by the former - when he says that the licentiousness was a response to the previous authoritatianism - weakens his case rather than strengthening it. If authoritarianism kept these problems largely away, then it is a return to proper authoritarianism, acting under the authority and commands of God, that we need.