THERE ARE THOSE WHO THINK THAT THE PRE-VATICAN II CHURCH WAS IN NEED OF REFORM--THEY ARE WRONG AND WE NEED TO HEAR THE VOICES OF THOSE WHO CLEARLY REMEMBER THE PRE-VATICAN II CHURCH TO INFORM US OF THE TRUTH BECAUSE THEY ARE PASSING AWAY

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I do have to say that Ferrone is correct in one way. Baby-boomers her age (1957) mine (1953) and the original ones (1946) and mostly the 1940's baby boomers are the ones who rebelled the most against authority, any authority, religious or political after Vatican II. They are the ones who despised the strict discipline, being hit with rulers, paddles and fists. (This happened in public schools too). They are the ones who grew tired of the regimented Church, Latin Liturgies, Gregorian chant and organ.

But Vatican II gave them the ammunition to keep their movement a movement and not a fad. They were taught nothing could change in the Catholic Church and accepted that until Vatican II opened the doors to change and others in the Church said everything could change.

And then Pope Paul VI began to freak out over what he wrought and tried to put the toothpaste back in the tube and he experienced the ire of the 1940's baby-boomers in a way that was dazzling.

And once Vatican II opened the door to ecumenism, interfaith relations and secularism, there was no need to stay in a wishy-washy, marshmellowy post Vatican II Church when there were so many equal options.

January 17, 2018 at 6:47 PM

...

TJM said...

So Rita was 7 when the first deforms of the Mass took place (1964). She must have been an exceptional child to have the necessary training, education, and lived experience to see what was "wrong" with the CHurch prior to Vatican Disaster II. LOL, what a maroon

January 17, 2018 at 7:40 PM

...

rcg said...

Why do we need interfaith dialogue and ecumenism?

January 17, 2018 at 10:30 PM

...

Anonymous said...

There had to be serious serious problems in the Church prior to Vatican II (I am talking about clergy and religious only) because how would you explain the devistation that occurred.

Look at the priesthood in 1963 and the look at it in 1966. Totally different. The same priest in 1963 said Mass reverently and was neatly dressed and conducted himself as a gentleman and a CATHOLIC priest. Fast forward to 1965 and the same man has long hair, is taking incredible liberties with the Mass, is questioning everything and is open to any crazy thing that comes down the road accept the truths of the Faith.

Let’s say that picture in the article of the Sisters of St. Joseph was taken in the early 1960’s. By the end of the decade the majority of those sisters were militants who openly opposed the Faith and corrupted the innocent children in their care with their nonsense. Something is wrong with that.

Stable people do not completely change their way of thinking and way of life so radically in so short a time as one year.

Look at the history of the Church in those days. There is a major difference in the Catholicism of 1963 compared to that of 1965. I am convinced that what happened was no accident. Destruction like that had to have been carefully planned years in advance. Using reason dictates that the decline that what we have seen happen so rapidly in the Church, literally from 1 year to another was diabolical and planned. What other explaination is there? The Holy Spirit is NOT the author of destruction and confusion or surprises. The Holy Spirit is a rational divine being not a sentimental feel good Jesuitical hippie from Latin America.

One the outside the Church looked wonderful but there is no way solidly formed nuns went from being Sr. Mary Benedict in a full length habit one year, to swigging Peggy in jeans and picket signs the next. That’s kind of behaviour is not how a mature well balanced adult behaves. It’s just not. The problems must have been extremely severe.

January 18, 2018 at 7:50 AM

...

Adam Michael said...

Fr. Kavanaugh,

The Church has historically interpreted John 17:20 as Christ's prayer to preserve the unity of the Church (and, by extension, to preserve all Christians in the already possessed unity of the Church), not a prayer to reestablish a lost unity of the Church or to construct a secular coalition of goodwill for peace, justice, or other concerns. Besides, it is ironic that you quote this verse in support of Catholic interfaith dialogue since such meetings rarely have belief in Christ and his mission as the unifying principle of their proceedings.

January 18, 2018 at 1:33 PM