Posted on 08/06/2017 5:10:42 PM PDT by ebb tide
I always find it faintly amusing to see how “mainstream” Catholic commentators attempt to diagnose the obvious malaise of the Church that developed abruptly after the Second Vatican Council, at whose beginning Pope John XXIII was praising “the Church’s vitality.”
Take this commentary, for example, which laments that “[f]ew religious publications are willing to delve into the issues facing the Catholic Church today when it comes to declining attendance. Most priests do not want to recognize the fact that churches are now emptier today than ever before and parochial schools are closing at an accelerating rate.”
Why? The author never really gets around to telling us. He merely notes the signs of both social and ecclesial decline in America since 1960 — the very year in which the Third Secret was to be revealed, only to be suppressed by Pope John — without offering any definitive answer to his own questions about the causes:
The author makes a couple of weak stabs at an explanation, citing the women’s liberation movement for the decline in marriage and family and “no more nuns” for the decline in Catholic education. But these are merely symptoms of an underlying disease.
Throwing up his hands, the author concludes: “The pews will remain empty unless the Catholic Church can address the issues blocking attendance. This will not be an easy task. The issues have to be addressed at the highest level in the Church.”
As we can see, our author is essentially clueless about why the Church has suffered a precipitous decline since Vatican II, correlated with a social decline reflected in the parlous state of the Catholic family in comparison with the immediate pre-conciliar period. He refers merely to “issues” that “have to be addressed at the highest level in the Church.”
But what issues? Let me suggest a few:
In sum, the “issues” our author says must be addressed “at the highest level in the Church” reduce to one issue: reversal of the ecclesial revolution that has convulsed her over the past half-century and the restoration of Catholic Tradition in all its integrity — liturgical, doctrinal and moral. Failing that, the human element of the Church will continue to be the salt that has lost its savor and is being trampled underfoot by a hostile world with whose powers Church leaders continue their fatuous, pointless, and worse-than-useless “dialogue.”
But that reversal, it now seems clear, can come only through a dramatic divine intervention — literally a miracle. And that miracle will not come, we can be sure, until Russia is finally consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, an act that will undo the consequences of the epochal faithlessness of her leaders these past fifty years.
The major source of child abuse by priests was allowing lots of gay men to become priests.
The Church was probably too eager to get more priests as vocations declined. Also, there were a string of liberal Bishops and Cardinals who saw no problem in letting gays into the priesthood so long as they pledged to be celibate.
They didn't keep that pledge.
BTW, child abuse is rampant in all places where there are children such as schools, orphanages, youth programs (Catholic, Protestant, non-religious, etc.)
The perverts go where the kids are and the responsible adults need to be ever watchful.
The Tridentine Latin is making a strong comeback through the Fraternal Society of St Peter, which was commissioned by St John Paul II . Those attending are young , married and with children
Four percent of Catholic clergy have committed sexual abuse of minors in the past fifty years. The percentage is higher in every other church. FBI statistics.
Thank you.
unfortunate since Pentecost was a clear message from God people should hear the word in their own language.
Agreed. The abuse was largely by homosexuals. But the scandal is properly called the abuse-AND-COVERUP scandal. The failures of the bishops to address the problem properly aggravated the scandal and caused some of the departures from the Church.
Guilty priests: 4%
Guilty bishops: 66%
No citation.
Not true.
Closer to .4% which is still unacceptable, but unfortunately comparable to other groups according to the compamanies that insure against said claims.
http://blogs.denverpost.com/hark/2010/05/25/scandal-creates-contempt-for-catholic-clergy/39/
The Mass was in Greek, and in Latin later. These were the languages of the people.
There are solid theological, anthropological, and psychological reasons for praying in a sacral language.
Keeping the Mass in Latin meant that the West’s patrimony of music was permanent and universal.
When most of the Mass was in Latin, the Scriptures and the preaching were always in the vernacular. And the people had Missals in Latin and the vernacular. The Mass as a whole is not a “lesson” or “instruction.”
When the apostles were preaching on Pentecost, they were not offering the Eucharist.
You sadly don’t know the story of Pentecost. please show me in the bible where the people only spoke greek and latin or in fact show me in any history book. On that day people were there from various nations and spoke on various tongues. that is God’s message reach to the people in the language they understand. you can enjoy the latin mass all you want just don’t printed thats what God directed.
so you posit that it was latin and Greek people spoke even in Jerusalem that wasn;t true. Why wasn’t;t the eucharist in Greek then. seems like they left out half the people. When did greek get left behind. Do you know that people in the north and eats didn’t ever speak latin unless they were very wealthy and had tutors.
So they went to other countries and islands and spoke only n Greek and latin. is that what you’re saying. they preaching in one language and did the mass sin another. why would they do that. wouldn’t that confuse people who didn’t speak latin or greek. why did God limit this miracle to non-euchartisc ministry.
your position is illogical and nonsensical.
It is generally agreed by historians that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic (Jewish Palestinian Aramaic), the common language of Judea in the first century AD, most likely a Galilean dialect distinguishable from that of Jerusalem.
don’t pretend
The decline is probably due to old out of fashion vestments and priestly garb, they should try changing it up a bit, perhaps a French style beret, like the new KofC costume, would attract more faithful to Mass
Do I need the /sarc?
When you are able to write in English, let me know.
You are starting out hostile, and distorting what I said so you can make more hostile accusations.
I’m glad you are wiser than all Catholics who lived from 33 A.D. to 1969 A.D. It must be awesome.
I was factual. you misstate history and religion and the bible and accuse me of being hostile. all you have to say is that the apostles preached and performed the eucharist in the local language thanks to the gift of Pentecost and that you prefer the Latin mass, which i kind of like myself having been an altar boy in the 50s.
That’s all you have to say, but you made up something to strengthen your position not knowing if anyone would call you on it.
You can still correct your error because I’m going to bed now and won ‘t continue this with you unless I see you post the same mistakes again or try another spin to justify your original mistake.
The choice of language in which the Eucharist was celebrated had absolutely nothing to do with the miracle on Pentecost.
This weird obsession with Pentecost is something you should try hard to shake.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.