Catholic Trad vs. Vatican II Divide

JonJoeDali

Is the divide between those who are more "traditional" and those who are more "liberal" getting deeper?

There are many liturgical traditions in the Church: the new Mass, the old Mass, Coptics, Eastern Orthodox, etc. I feel as if the interface between the traddies and the happy-clappies is getting rather abrasive these last few years. Especially since Summorum Pontificum.

What can be done to shepherd everyone in the same direction and promote a bit more respect between the various traditions? Benedict XVI sees himself as promoting continuity in the Church (hence the high number) and uses liturgical motifs from all traditions in his Masses (himself having a preference for all things traditional, but we have seen from his visit in England that he doesn't mind a bit of Novus Ordo either).

I think it's great that he's reached out to many other religions of the world: Muslims, Protestants and Jews to name but a few highlights. Do we need to just calm down a bit and focus ourselves for the real battle: that of the religious world vs. the atheist scientific dictatorship that is brewing both in the West and in countries like China.

ubertrad

JonJoeDali wrote: »

Is the divide between those who are more "traditional" and those who are more "liberal" getting deeper?

There are many liturgical traditions in the Church: the new Mass, the old Mass, Coptics, Eastern Orthodox, etc. I feel as if the interface between the traddies and the happy-clappies is getting rather abrasive these last few years. Especially since Summorum Pontificum.

What can be done to shepherd everyone in the same direction and promote a bit more respect between the various traditions? Benedict XVI sees himself as promoting continuity in the Church (hence the high number) and uses liturgical motifs from all traditions in his Masses (himself having a preference for all things traditional, but we have seen from his visit in England that he doesn't mind a bit of Novus Ordo either).

I think it's great that he's reached out to many other religions of the world: Muslims, Protestants and Jews to name but a few highlights. Do we need to just calm down a bit and focus ourselves for the real battle: that of the religious world vs. the atheist scientific dictatorship that is brewing both in the West and in countries like China.

It's not so much about Traditional Vs. Liberal. There is only one kind of Catholic that matters: the faithful Catholic. All Catholics are inherently called to be Traditional, since our faith stands on Sacred Scripture, Sacred tradition, and the Sacred Magisterium (Pope and the Bishops in union with him).

At the end of the day, the liberals, or as I prefer the more accurate term, the dissenters, diss the reality of the Incarnation, in favour of their own irrational sentimentality.

I think that one thing that could be done is a profession of faith by every bishop, priest, religious, and lay-person in the Catholic Church in Ireland. But that would run into problems. There are two sets of people who won't do that: dissenters ('liberals') and some Traditionalists (SSPXers).

That's the thing.

Benedict has achieved so much in a short time, but there is a lot to be done. It all comes down to faithfulness. Are we faithful or are we not to Christ and His Church?

Another major issue is catechesis. Again, how many Catholics in Ireland have a solid grounding in the Catholic faith? Knowing what I know, having been a typical Catholic before my conversion, I'd say not many. So you end up with a situation where Catholics reject a faith out of hand which they never understood. With all the seductions and brainwashing of the secular world, it is no wonder they reject what little, often distorted, elements of the Catholic faith that they are aware of.

JonJoeDali

"dissenters"?! That's a bit harsh don't you think? I think Vatican II -style Mass can be very reverend. Remember that in continents like Africa, you have to reach out to people and full-on Latin may not always be the best channel.

While I don't like VII Mass myself, I do think that the conflict is becoming a little toxic. I would certainly take Communion at VII Mass and receive confession from a priest who sports pullovers and open-neck shirts, despite my preference otherwise. We have to acknowledge the validity of the Novus Ordo tradition as instigated by Pope Paul the VI and continued by JPII. We can't have any more ruptures and I feel we just need to iron out the creases more than anything. These new liturgical tweaks (i.e. "and the spirit be with you") that are coming on stream are baby steps in the right direction.

ubertrad

JonJoeDali wrote: »

"dissenters"?! That's a bit harsh don't you think? I think Vatican II -style Mass can be very reverend. Remember that in countries like Africa, you have to reach out to people and full-on Latin may not always be the best channel.

While I don't like VII Mass myself, I do think that the conflict is becoming a little toxic. I would certainly take Communion at VII Mass and receive confession from a priest who sports pullovers and open-neck shirts, despite my preference otherwise. We have to acknowledge the validity of the Novus Ordo tradition as instigated by Pope Paul the VI and continued by JPII. We can't have any more ruptures and I feel we just need to iron out the creases more than anything.

What is this 'VII Mass' you speak of? Is it the same Mass of Paul VI?

The Mass of Paul VI can be offered in a conservative way, but typically, it falls short of what Holy Church requires. It is more open to abuse than the Extraordinary Form. This is usually through ignorance, pride, and sometimes outright disobedience against the rubrics and words of the Missal.

I think if we follow the lead of the Holy Father, we shall not go astray. He wants to see a 'reform of the reform' of the Mass, so that the Mass of Paul VI is more in continuity with Tradition of our liturgical worship, not with the vain rupture that was desired by the Modernist dissenters, who are now whining because the wheels have come off their little project. The ACP represent the desperate buzzing of dying bees.

Manach

My personal view, which is based on watching ETWN is that the extraordinary form it is interesting, I'd prefer the local type I normally attend.
The intricacies of Church theology is not something I've followed, preferring to be more familiar with is the Catholic Church history, how it in the past interacted with other historical trends.

ubertrad

Manach wrote: »

My personal view, which is based on watching ETWN is that the extraordinary form it is interesting, I'd prefer the local type I normally attend.
The intricacies of Church theology is not something I've followed, preferring to be more familiar with is the Catholic Church history, how it in the past interacted with other historical trends.

Are you talking about the daily Mass on EWTN, or are you talking about the Extraordinary Form of Holy Mass which is occasionally shown on EWTN?

I don't mean to patronise, but there is some confusion about the Mass. Many people may not realise that EWTN daily Mass is the Ordinary Form (Mass of Paul VI) and the exact same Mass that you experience each week in Ireland in the vast majority of parishes.

EWTN do it by the book: most parishes in Ireland have an abusive version. I don't use that word lightly. The Mass is of course valid, but there are abuses introduced to the Mass by priests who ought to know better.

To be blunt, there is sometimes a greater difference between the Novus Ordo (New Mass) as it is offered in most places, than there is between the New Mass offered as the Church desires and specifies and the Old Latin, or Extraordinary Form Mass.

ubertrad

I should really say that the issue is not about a Vatican II Vs. Trad dispute.

What we are talking about is a dispute between those who say that Vatican II represented a rupture with Tradition, espoused by both Traditionalists (SSPX) and liberals/dissenters alike versus those faithful Catholics who accept the Council as it is: a Pastoral Council of the Church which defined no new doctrine but sought to advance the Church's mission in the modern world and intended to set out for modern man the faith of the Apostles. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a fruit of the Second Vatican Council. The true interpretation of Vatican II is given by the Magisterium of the Church and is accepted by faithful Catholics. Vatican II was not intended to be the French Revolution of the Catholic Church, which is what the Modernists wanted.

Benedict XVI set out the issue to the Roman Curia in his Christmas address.

This is an excerpt, but I recommend reading the whole thing:

Why has the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far been so difficult?

Well, it all depends on the correct interpretation of the Council or - as we would say today - on its proper hermeneutics, the correct key to its interpretation and application. The problems in its implementation arose from the fact that two contrary hermeneutics came face to face and quarrelled with each other. One caused confusion, the other, silently but more and more visibly, bore and is bearing fruit.

On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call "a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture"; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the "hermeneutic of reform", of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.

The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council. It claims that they are the result of compromises in which, to reach unanimity, it was found necessary to keep and reconfirm many old things that are now pointless. However, the true spirit of the Council is not to be found in these compromises but instead in the impulses toward the new that are contained in the texts.

These innovations alone were supposed to represent the true spirit of the Council, and starting from and in conformity with them, it would be possible to move ahead. Precisely because the texts would only imperfectly reflect the true spirit of the Council and its newness, it would be necessary to go courageously beyond the texts and make room for the newness in which the Council's deepest intention would be expressed, even if it were still vague.

In a word: it would be necessary not to follow the texts of the Council but its spirit. In this way, obviously, a vast margin was left open for the question on how this spirit should subsequently be defined and room was consequently made for every whim.

The nature of a Council as such is therefore basically misunderstood. In this way, it is considered as a sort of constituent that eliminates an old constitution and creates a new one. However, the Constituent Assembly needs a mandator and then confirmation by the mandator, in other words, the people the constitution must serve. The Fathers had no such mandate and no one had ever given them one; nor could anyone have given them one because the essential constitution of the Church comes from the Lord and was given to us so that we might attain eternal life and, starting from this perspective, be able to illuminate life in time and time itself.

To my mind, this essentially says one thing: the dissenters are essentially dumb, blinded by their own indulged concupiscence and puffed up with intellectual pride which serves their own destruction and those who would follow them.

(BTW, my user-name is intended to be humorous. It means uber-Traditionalist. It's an in-joke thing.)

JonJoeDali

ubertrad wrote: »

I should really say that the issue is not about a Vatican II Vs. Trad dispute.

What we are talking about is a dispute between those who say that Vatican II represented a rupture with Tradition, espoused by both Traditionalists (SSPX) and liberals/dissenters alike versus those faithful Catholics who accept the Council as it is: a Pastoral Council of the Church which defined no new doctrine but sought to advance the Church's mission in the modern world and intended to set out for modern man the faith of the Apostles. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a fruit of the Second Vatican Council. The true interpretation of Vatican II is given by the Magisterium of the Church and is accepted by faithful Catholics. Vatican II was not intended to be the French Revolution of the Catholic Church, which is what the Modernists wanted.

Benedict XVI set out the issue to the Roman Curia in his Christmas address.

This is an excerpt, but I recommend reading the whole thing:



To my mind, this essentially says one thing: the dissenters are essentially dumb, blinded by their own indulged concupiscence and puffed up with intellectual pride which serves their own destruction and those who would follow them.

(BTW, my user-name is intended to be humorous. It means uber-Traditionalist. It's an in-joke thing.)

While I agree with a lot of what you post, I don't think the rupture can be fixed by abrasiveness and an "us vs. them" mindset. I think it would be a good idea for all Catholics to participate in both Masses at least once a year, even if they don't like it!

Overall, I think it will take at least two generations to undo the damage that Vatican II has caused. The liturgical conference of 2012 is a very important forum, but I fear it will just descend into an argumentative irrelevance given the deep split between traddies and happy-clappies, not to mention the child abuse backdrop. It would be a shame if that happened, because it's such an important issue for the life and soul of the church.

ubertrad

JonJoeDali wrote: »

While I agree with a lot of what you post, I don't think the rupture can be fixed by abrasiveness and an "us vs. them" mindset. I think it would be a good idea for all Catholics to participate in both Masses at least once a year, even if they don't like it!

Overall, I think it will take at least two generations to undo the damage that Vatican II has caused. The liturgical conference of 2012 is a very important forum, but I fear it will just descend into an argumentative irrelevance given the deep split between traddies and happy-clappies, not to mention the child abuse backdrop. It would be a shame if that happened, because it's such an important issue for the life and soul of the church.

The problem is not Vatican II per se, but the demonic 'Spirit of Vatican II' crowd who used the confusion after Vatican II to destroy the faith and morals of several generations and implement their new religion - a dumbed down 'Catholic Lite'.

There can be no reconciliation between believers and dissenters, unless the dissenters stop dissenting from the faith of the Apostles as handed down to us. You either believe the Catholic faith is true or you don't. If you don't believe it, you can leave the Church, but you certainly shouldn't stay and teach your own doctrines under the auspices of the Catholic Church, taking all the privileges and position afforded by membership of the Church, which is what the ultra-dissenting Association of Catholic Priests wants to do.

For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, 2 will accumulate teachers

- 2. Tim. 4:3

I think it would be a good idea for the Extraordinary Form Mass to be offered in every parish each Sunday, and this was the expressed wish by the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, according to Cardinal _____ (I can't recall which Cardinal said this, sorry!). The problem is, whilst the vast majority of Catholics accept the New Mass, there remains a group of people, among them priests and bishops, who reject the Old Mass (Extraordinary Form) and have no time for it and little tolerance for those who are attached to it.

I don't think 'traddies' and 'happy clappies' are as opposed as you think. Youth 2000 would be considered by many to be 'happy clappies', yet they are also faithful to the Magisterium of the Church and seek to be at the heart of the Church. As I said, the real divide is between those who embrace the faith, and those who reject it. The real issue is faithfulness to the Catholic Church, in its faith and morals and to its authority - the Magisterium.

JonJoeDali

ubertrad wrote: »

The problem is not Vatican II per se, but the demonic 'Spirit of Vatican II' crowd who used the confusion after Vatican II to destroy the faith and morals of several generations and implement their new religion - a dumbed down 'Catholic Lite'.

I think it would be a good idea for the Extraordinary Form Mass to be offered in every parish each Sunday, and this was the expressed wish by the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, according to Cardinal _____ (I can't recall which Cardinal said this, sorry!). The problem is, whilst the vast majority of Catholics accept the New Mass, there remains a group of people, among them priests and bishops, who reject the Old Mass (Extraordinary Form) and have no time for it and little tolerance for those who are attached to it.

I don't think 'traddies' and 'happy clappies' are as opposed as you think. Youth 2000 would be considered by many to be 'happy clappies', yet they are also faithful to the Magisterium of the Church and seek to be at the heart of the Church. As I said, the real divide is between those who embrace the faith, and those who reject it. The real issue is faithfulness to the Catholic Church, in its faith and morals and to its authority - the Magisterium.

I agree with a lot of this. I think we need to reach out to some of these "spirit of VII" types and bring them along with us. It may mean allowing them to celebrate Mass in a liturgically innovative way, but insisting that they adhere to certain norms (for example six candles on the altar rather than two tiny little yokes, reverend and intellectual sermons as opposed to dumbed-down ones and an insistence that they dress appropriately, particularly when in public or representing the Church - for example on TV programs).

ubertrad

JonJoeDali wrote: »

I agree with a lot of this. I think we need to reach out to some of these "spirit of VII" types and bring them along with us. It may mean allowing them to celebrate Mass in a liturgically innovative way, but insisting that they adhere to certain norms (for example six candles on the altar rather than two tiny little yokes, reverend and intellectual sermons as opposed to dumbed-down ones and an insistence that they dress appropriately, particularly when in public or representing the Church - for example on TV programs).

You can bring a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Still, the water should be offered and that is a priority. Priests and bishops should go on a national mission. This was called for by Benedict in his letter to the Church in Ireland. Many priests and bishops, I am convinced, are almost completely clueless. It's not all their fault - a defective formation in the Irish Seminary is a large part of the problem. But they do all have a responsibility now to get themselves sorted.

I think your thread title is framed wrongly. It's not about 'Tradition versus Vatican II'. Vatican II is a valid Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church. It is therefore to be understood as in continuity with the Tradition of the Church, not as a rupture with Tradition. I just want to re-emphasise that point.

Any priest must offer the Mass as the Church stipulates, and it is not difficult - all a priest has to do is follow the words and rubrics of the Mass. A couple of candles on the altar and a brass Crucifix, as necessary and laudable as these things are, won't do much to stop a priest turning the Mass into a clown-fest if that is what he wants to do. What we need therefore are holy priests who are not narcissistically fixated on self. we don't advance the Church's mission by giving priests free reign to celebrate Mass in 'liturgically innovative ways'. They've been doing that for the last 40-odd years and the Churches have emptied as people get fed up with it. I know I'm fed up with it.

JonJoeDali

ubertrad wrote: »

You can bring a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Still, the water should be offered and that is a priority. Priests and bishops should go on a national mission. This was called for by Benedict in his letter to the Church in Ireland. Many priests and bishops, I am convinced, are almost completely clueless. It's not all their fault - a defective formation in the Irish Seminary is a large part of the problem. But they do all have a responsibility now to get themselves sorted.

I think your thread title is framed wrongly. It's not about 'Tradition versus Vatican II'. Vatican II is a valid Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church. It is therefore to be understood as in continuity with the Tradition of the Church, not as a rupture with Tradition. I just want to re-emphasise that point.

Any priest must offer the Mass as the Church stipulates, and it is not difficult - all a priest has to do is follow the words and rubrics of the Mass. A couple of candles on the altar and a brass Crucifix, as necessary and laudable as these things are, won't do much to stop a priest turning the Mass into a clown-fest if that is what he wants to do. What we need therefore are holy priests who are not narcissistically fixated on self. we don't advance the Church's mission by giving priests free reign to celebrate Mass in 'liturgically innovative ways'. They've been doing that for the last 40-odd years and the Churches have emptied as people get fed up with it. I know I'm fed up with it.

You're right "liturgical innovation" is a dangerous thing that can lead to clown mass.

ubertrad

JonJoeDali wrote: »

You're right "liturgical innovation" is a dangerous thing that can lead to clown mass.

Or Halloween Mass, with Satan giving out Holy Communion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WadbbxPoBlk&feature=BF&playnext=1&list=QL&index=2

lmaopml

What kind of a bizarre thread this is...It makes me really ashamed to hear this tripe talk..? Like some kind of a sliding scale grading of 'Catholic'ness' according to the 'trads'....ask my bum cheeks!

Really guys, Vatican II and traditionalists - really 'dumb' people and traddies and happy clappies??? WTF are you talking about? You don't 'know' what makes anybody tick, nor should you judge..

There is 'narcisism' afoot, and it should be looking right back at you through the mirror next time you brush your teeth or have a shave.

This is NOT what the Catholic Church is all about, no it's not...

the very cheek; 'happy clappies' indeed!

ubertrad

lmaopml wrote: »

What kind of a bizarre thread this is...It makes me really ashamed to hear this tripe talk..? Like some kind of a sliding scale grading of 'Catholic'ness' according to the 'trads'....ask my bum cheeks!

Really guys, Vatican II and traditionalists - really 'dumb' people and traddies and happy clappies??? WTF are you talking about? You don't 'know' what makes anybody tick, nor should you judge..

There is 'narcisism' afoot, and it should be looking right back at you through the mirror next time you brush your teeth or have a shave.

This is NOT what the Catholic Church is all about, no it's not...

the very cheek; 'happy clappies' indeed!

DON'T be judgmental! Who are you to judge us and our motives? Maybe this thread touches some of your nerves, what with your swearing and rude talk.

If you have a problem with tripe talk, why don't you go and dress down the Holy Father who provided the content for much of what I have posted here. This thread addresses one of the central issues within the Catholic Church today. If you want, you can bury your ostrich head in the sand and pretend everything is just OK and let's carry on as before, but I think we all know where that kind of behaviour got the Catholic Church, huh?

JonJoeDali

lmaopml wrote: »

This is NOT what the Catholic Church is all about, no it's not...

The holy sacrafice of the Mass is central to Catholicism. Quite evidently there is a big problem today with all the bickering and sniping over liturgy from both sides. This cannot continue much longer IMO.

I'm praying that someone will see sense at next year's Liturgical Conference and show real leadership on this issue.

ubertrad

JonJoeDali wrote: »

The holy sacrafice of the Mass is central to Catholicism. Quite evidently there is a big problem today with all the bickering and sniping over liturgy from both sides. This cannot continue much longer IMO.

I'm praying that someone will see sense at next year's Liturgical Conference and show real leadership on this issue.

A more pressing issue is the introduction of the new translation of the Mass in Advent 2011. The Association of Catholic Priests, Reality magazine, and other dissenters are stoking up for a rejection of the translation.

What probably will happen, though I hope I am wrong, is that there will be a mediocre compromise between the opposing factions, and the Eucharistic Congress will achieve nothing. I hope I am wrong about that but I see little hope to be honest. It's like chalk and cheese, the difference between the followers of the Magisterium on the one hand and the dissenters on the other. I think the sooner the dissenters set up, officially, their own Irish National Church, the better for everyone.

JonJoeDali

An "Irish National Church" is the last thing we need. What we need is to shepherd everyone along together and iron out creases (indeed ruptures). At the end of the day, everyone is loyal to the same Pope, the same Church and the same Bible. That would be a good place to start. Liturgical reform is a crucial matter facing the modern Catholic Church. It is a great pity that there is no positive enthusiasm for this Liturgical Conference in 2012 and intellectual leaders who can offer solutions to all the problems.

ubertrad

JonJoeDali wrote: »

An "Irish National Church" is the last thing we need. What we need is to shepherd everyone along together and iron out creases (indeed ruptures). At the end of the day, everyone is loyal to the same Pope, the same Church and the same Bible. That would be a good place to start. Liturgical reform is a crucial matter facing the modern Catholic Church. It is a great pity that there is no positive enthusiasm for this Liturgical Conference in 2012 and intellectual leaders who can offer solutions to all the problems.

It is coming. You might not like it, but it is coming. In the coming years, I predict an official schism, with a Roman Catholic Church minority and an Irish National Church which will fight the Roman Church in the courts for Church property and assets. It will get very nasty. Of course, this is only my prediction - it may not come to pass.

Everyone is not loyal to the Pope. The liberals detest Pope Benedict and they detest the idea of an infallible Church. They are moral relativists who do not believe there is an absolute truth.

They want women priests, even though the teaching of a male-only ordained priesthood belongs to the Deposit of Faith, as confirmed by the CDF. They have already started to 'ordain' women 'priestettes' with disobedient Catholic bishops.

They don't agree with the teachings of the Church on sexuality. They want to condone homosexual acts.

They are irreconcilable. You can't shepherd sheep that don't want to be shepherded. If they are willing and obey, they can be welcomed into the fold. Right now, we have rabid sheep within the fold that are creating mayhem and they need to be dealt with. The priests who ravaged the lambs sexually are one and the same with those who ravaged the flock spiritually.

I'd love to see a Saul-like conversion among dissident clergy, but pride and hardened hearts make that less likely. We must pray for them and do penance.

JonJoeDali

ubertrad wrote: »

It is coming. You might not like it, but it is coming. In the coming years, I predict an official schism, with a Roman Catholic Church minority and an Irish National Church which will fight the Roman Church in the courts for Church property and assets. It will get very nasty. Of course, this is only my prediction - it may not come to pass.

Everyone is not loyal to the Pope. The liberals detest Pope Benedict and they detest the idea of an infallible Church. They are moral relativists who do not believe there is an absolute truth.

They want women priests, even though the teaching of a male-only ordained priesthood belongs to the Deposit of Faith, as confirmed by the CDF. They have already started to 'ordain' women 'priestettes' with disobedient Catholic bishops.

They don't agree with the teachings of the Church on sexuality. They want to condone homosexual acts.

They are irreconcilable. You can't shepherd sheep that don't want to be shepherded. If they are willing and obey, they can be welcomed into the fold. Right now, we have rabid sheep within the fold that are creating mayhem and they need to be dealt with. The priests who ravaged the lambs sexually are one and the same with those who ravaged the flock spiritually.

I'd love to see a Saul-like conversion among dissident clergy, but pride and hardened hearts make that less likely. We must pray for them and do penance.

If that did happen (an "Irish National Church"), they'd try to associate all the child abuse with traditionalists.

ubertrad

JonJoeDali wrote: »

If that did happen (an "Irish National Church"), they'd try to associate all the child abuse with traditionalists.

Some people are already saying that. They think we want to go back to the good old days. Even though (arguably) most of the abusers, and those who enabled them, were in their camp, so to speak.

Just because somebody appreciates sound doctrine and reverent liturgy doesn't mean that one supports sexual abuse or a culture which would enable it. But I guess some people aren't so good at basic reasoning:

Bishop associates traditionalists with paedophilia

Good commentary here: http://www.examiner.com/catholic-in-national/brit-bishop-equates-traditional-catholics-to-pedophilia

What I find most galling is the way dissident 'Catholics' champion dissenting clerics, for example Bishop Weakland in Milwaukee, and then when the same diocese files for bankruptcy, the dissenters say 'Ah look those rotten clerics!'. YEAH the rotten cleric who was your poster boy not so long ago! Sheesh!

JonJoeDali

ubertrad wrote: »

Some people are already saying that. They think we want to go back to the good old days. Even though (arguably) most of the abusers, and those who enabled them, were in their camp, so to speak.

Just because somebody appreciates sound doctrine and reverent liturgy doesn't mean that one supports sexual abuse or a culture which would enable it. But I guess some people aren't so good at basic reasoning:

Bishop associates traditionalists with paedophilia

Good commentary here: http://www.examiner.com/catholic-in-national/brit-bishop-equates-traditional-catholics-to-pedophilia

What I find most galling is the way dissident 'Catholics' champion dissenting clerics, for example Bishop Weakland in Milwaukee, and then when the same diocese files for bankruptcy, the dissenters say 'Ah look those rotten clerics!'. YEAH the rotten cleric who was your poster boy not so long ago! Sheesh!

I don't think it's helpful (or acceptable) to blame clerical paedophilia on the happy clappies either.

ubertrad

JonJoeDali wrote: »

I don't think it's helpful (or acceptable) to blame clerical paedophilia on the happy clappies either.

I don't think it is helpful or fair or acceptable to assume that I blamed pedophilia on happy-clappies. I did no such thing.

You will find that many so-called happy-clappies desire to be faithful to the Magisterium, even if they do go a bit astray in their liturgical practices at times, whether they be Youth 2000 and similar youth groups or the Charismatic renewal groups. Liberals are generally (if not totally) not happy-clappies. Most of them are depressed. At least they act depressed. And bitter. That's my experience anyway. Until I met you, I'd never really seen happy-clappies associated with those who dissent from the faith and morals of the Catholic Church. You get a few, mostly older women, Catholics who might be involved in various prayer groups, and they may have some dubious positions, usually on women priests and perhaps divorce and remarriage, but generally, I would say, most happy-clappies are desiring to be faithful Catholics.

On the other hand, most Catholics who reject the faith and morals of the Church I know are miserable and generally bitter.

I seek only to blame sex abuse on those who have rejected the faith and morals of the Catholic Church. Whether one abuses the young or Our Lord in the Eucharist, all is mortal sin and all is deserving of condemnation of the highest order.

If you read the second link I posted above, you'd see that the abuse peaked during the time bishops (liberal bishops) were allowing unsuitable candidates into the priesthood, whilst good ones were rejected. These are the same clerics who did not agree with the Church teaching on homosexuality. Read Michael Rose's book, Goodbye, Good Men.

eblistic

ubertrad wrote: »

I seek only to blame sex abuse on those who have rejected the faith and morals of the Catholic Church.

Wow!

I count myself among that group (to the point of having defected while one still could). Can you explain my part in the whole thing? I'm hoping you didn't mean your accusation to be that broad and can clarify.

ubertrad

eblistic wrote: »

Wow!

I count myself among that group (to the point of having defected while one still could). Can you explain my part in the whole thing? I'm hoping you didn't mean your accusation to be that broad and can clarify.

I think I did explain it above. Please read my earlier posts on this thread.

However, let me offer some further comments.

Those who espouse erroneous opinions, beliefs and so forth and adhere to them, are really who I am talking about. You, I'm guessing, are a victim of circumstances, along with the rest of us. I presume you haven't tried to actively promote heresy and dissent in the Church. But you will have been a victim of it, as am I. Denied the truths of the faith, it is little wonder many people leave in disgust. But the Catholic faith is beautiful, and the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ. I recommend you to explore it, beginning with perhaps the Catechism of the Catholic Church or perhaps some of the books by Scott Hahn. or Peter Kreeft.

After the Second Vatican Council, what would be termed the liberal elements inside the Catholic Church, used the confusion and trumoil to peddle their new religion. They sought to introduce what is called Modernism into the Church. An example of Modernist thought would be: 'We used to think homosexuality was wrong, but we are enlightened now, and with the discoveries of science, we can now say that homosexuality is normal and healthy.' Or they might say, 'Jesus was not God and he did not perform miracles.' These people positioned themselves in key positions in the Church which they occupy to this day, although the tide is slowly turning. But with generations denied knowledge of the true faith, there is a lot of work to be done.

The Pope writes in his new book, Light of the World:

Of course the intellectual climate of the 1970s, for which the 1950s had already paved the way, contributed to this … The thesis was advocated—and this even infiltrated Catholic moral theology — that there was no such thing as something that is bad in itself. There were only things that were “relatively” bad. What was good or bad depended on the consequences. In such a context, where everything is relative and nothing intrinsically evil exists, but only relative good and relative evil, people who have an inclination to such behaviour are left with no solid footing.

The doctrine of the Church was not polluted with these bad ideas, but they were taught in the seminaries and so you have a situation where many priests do not believe what the Church actually teaches. They have their own ideas and... stuff.

You'll see that leading liberals in the Church here in Ireland were hauled up in Maynooth. The president and dean at one time was a certain Michael Ledwith. So he was the man who was key in the formation of priests in Ireland, along with his minions. He's now working in America with a new age sect on such books as 'The Hamburger Universe'.