If Pope John XXIII had lived, Vatican II would have been different. I don't think that it would have gone on for three years and from what I know about him I don't think that he would have approved the new Mass.All possible. John XXIII was a good-hearted Italian who wasn't the liberal people think.
I always say, the Second Vatican Council would have been the perfect opportunity to promulgate the fifth Marian dogma. Marian devotion was very high after the war and through the fifties.We can agree to disagree on that. I'm Marian as far as the creed etc. are, and I pray the Angelus and the Rosary, but that's it. She's the Mother of God; can't get any better than that.
She is co-redemptrix.I can accept that as the church does but it's too much of a headache to explain. Luke, the creed, and Ephesus said it all for me: she's the Mother of God. I accept everything else the church teaches about her but there you are; I think it's commentary to the main thing. My patristic-like Anglican roots? Sure.
The real John XXIII told seminaries to step up teaching and using Latin and told religious orders not to ordain homosexuals. You never hear that of course.
Read his autobiography, Journal of a Soul. He was a very holy man. I don't know the veracity of this but I once heard it said that he felt it improper to look directly into a woman's eyes.I believe that about Pope John: he had been in seminary since he was 11 (yes, junior seminary) so I'm sure purity including custody of the eyes, in a land with famously beautiful women (Gina Lollobrigida, Sophia Loren, et al.), was a big struggle for him as a young man even though he had a vocation.
All the good that Vatican II ostensibly tried to do could have been done without the damage to the church's morale and standing, and without the scandal to the faithful, with a few papal pronouncements: American-style religious liberty can work, let's teach the Protestants and others by meeting with them, and allow a vernacular option for the traditional Mass. Done. (By the way, the Russian Orthodox in America, the Metropolia/OCA, handled the last perfectly: they just translated from Slavonic to English and adopted the Gregorian calendar; they didn't write anew.)
The trouble was our churchmen bought into the Zeitgeist, not of the hippies, who didn't yet exist and anyway didn't care about religion, but the Space Age (yes, my era!): everything streamlined and updated, getting better through "Progress!" Now that we've studied the Mass, let's write a new one for modern man. Catholics will keep coming to Mass in droves and the Protestants will love us and come back!
How's that working out?
Look at the UN building and the '64 World's Fair: that's the Zeitgeist of Vatican II. Not necessarily heretical but foolhardy when applied to the life of the church.
I wonder if you remember the crap I read and heard from Catholics in good standing in the '80s, basically saying the Protestants were right. Even books with imprimaturs taught this. No wonder congregational Anglo-Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy seemed better.
I remember all too well.A pastor literally yelled in my face that "the church now is vibrant!" and I wanted "a church that no longer exists."
Many people are still being told that nonsense. I feel very blessed to have access to solid, orthodox parishes.I know our teachings and I'm not the narrow reactionary the liberals think I am, so a priest or whoever couldn't cow me with that if he tried. I'd give him Huckleberry Finn's line: "All right, I'll go to hell." And leave and never return to that parish. I'd go to another.
I also know of instances where people have gone to confession to confess a mortal sin, and the priest tells them that what they have confessed is not a sin. The uncatechized simply believe the priest.That's on that priest's soul; if he knows better (and wouldn't he?) he'll have to answer to God for it.
Yes he will indeed. I'm not sure which saint said this, but one of them said something to the effect of, "the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops and priests." Very scary.Indeed. I first heard that 30 years ago, from a holy SSPX priest. It's because of the (much overused word) awesome responsibility of the clergy for other people's souls.
Of course priests mustn't lie about the church's teachings but that doesn't mean being an ogre in the confessional. I've run across that exactly once and that was enough. I've been told that traditionally priests are taught to be gentle in the confessional. Where I go for that, a city church manned by a mainstream religious order, they are, very peaceful.