Could be. Lotsa bad goin on in the 50's undercover. But I think there was something else at play. The 50's were a fever pitch of rosaries and expectation in prep for the 1960 revelation of the Third Secret. When the pope announced, nah, never mind, there was this collective psychological collapse, sort of like a mass silent deflation. Two or three years later, who is surprised to see Catholics embracing the pill (which they did, long before Humanae Vitae). Who cared what the hierarchy said, if the hierarchy didn't care what Mary said?
Yes. There was lots of bad stuff, but I should have put her comment in the context of other things that she said. She's not talking about heretics beneath the radar but, rather, "reactionaries" - people who might today be called "traditionalists" but back then would have simply been viewed as normal Catholics - who were being too reactionary. That's why Vatican II was necessary to "throw open the windows (doors?)" of the Church, etc.
Not sure about that chick, but regarding chicks qua chicks,
The scandal of the Caroline Calloway “scam” story isn’t the “scam” https://blogstupidgirl.wordpress.com/2019/09/16/the-scandal-of-the-caroline-calloway-scam-story-isnt-the-scam-its-that-800000-infatuated-females-were-dumb-enough-to-fall-for-it/
The 1950's Catholic laity had little knowledge of what was going on in the hierarchy, and the Church in the US was growing. Virtually no one in the pew saw a need to change the Mass. As statics show, they were loyal to it. To blame 1950's Catholics for Vatican II is simply incorrect. They had little influence over a hierarchy that thought it needed to fix something that wasn't broken.
Could be. Lotsa bad goin on in the 50's undercover. But I think there was something else at play. The 50's were a fever pitch of rosaries and expectation in prep for the 1960 revelation of the Third Secret. When the pope announced, nah, never mind, there was this collective psychological collapse, sort of like a mass silent deflation. Two or three years later, who is surprised to see Catholics embracing the pill (which they did, long before Humanae Vitae). Who cared what the hierarchy said, if the hierarchy didn't care what Mary said?
ReplyDeleteYes. There was lots of bad stuff, but I should have put her comment in the context of other things that she said. She's not talking about heretics beneath the radar but, rather, "reactionaries" - people who might today be called "traditionalists" but back then would have simply been viewed as normal Catholics - who were being too reactionary. That's why Vatican II was necessary to "throw open the windows (doors?)" of the Church, etc.
Delete" reactionary" ? Please explain what you mean by that term? Can you provide some examples?
DeleteThe aphorism "Young and dumb" comes to mind.
ReplyDeleteNot sure about that chick, but regarding chicks qua chicks,
ReplyDeleteThe scandal of the Caroline Calloway “scam” story isn’t the “scam” https://blogstupidgirl.wordpress.com/2019/09/16/the-scandal-of-the-caroline-calloway-scam-story-isnt-the-scam-its-that-800000-infatuated-females-were-dumb-enough-to-fall-for-it/
What's EF?
ReplyDeleteB16 called the 1962 version of the Roman Missal (Latin: Missale Romanum) the "Extraordinary Form".
DeleteIt appears that girl is dumber than a box of Vatican-2 bishops.
ReplyDeleteShe's a closet witch. Her tattoos are sigils. Sigils are satanic gates linked to specific demons. Never trust a Jesuit, they are enemies of Christ.
ReplyDeleteThe 1950's Catholic laity had little knowledge of what was going on in the hierarchy, and the Church in the US was growing. Virtually no one in the pew saw a need to change the Mass. As statics show, they were loyal to it. To blame 1950's Catholics for Vatican II is simply incorrect. They had little influence over a hierarchy that thought it needed to fix something that wasn't broken.
ReplyDelete