Anyone want to see the direction we were headed before Vatican II?

PART I. Can women be permitted to sing in the choir in church?

The principles are given by Pope St. Pius X in his motu proprio on the restoration of Sacred Music, and in particular of the ancient Gregorian Chant. This document of November 22, 1903, is entitled Tra le sollecitudine and is published in its entirety in the March 1995 issue of The Angelus (pp.36-40).

The pope states repeatedly that the Sacred Chant is an integral part of the liturgy, directed to the glory of God and the sanctification and edification of the faithful. (§1) It is consequently not a performance, but a part of the act of divine worship. His conclusion follows:

Except the chant of the celebrant and the sacred ministers at the altar, which must always be sung in plainchant without any accompaniment, the rest of the liturgical singing belongs properly to the choir of clerics ...It follows from the same principle that the singers in church have a real liturgical office, and that women therefore, being incapable of such an office, cannot be admitted to the choir (§§12, 13).

http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__liturgical.htm




Is slavery evil, and if so, surely the North was right in the American Civil War?

Slavery as an institution can be understood in two ways. The ancient pagans understood it as the right of ownership of one person over another, as over a thing or an animal, the slave entirely belonging in every aspect to his master, without any recognition of his free will. This is illicit and immoral, for one person can never have the right of control over another’s intellect and will, according to which he is made in the image and likeness of God. Such a pagan concept of slavery is manifestly opposed to the natural law, and a violation of every man’s duty to use his own intellect and will to freely serve God.

However, slavery need not be understood in this sense. It can be simply the ownership of a man’s ability to work, his abilities, his productivity. Understood in this sense, it does not violate a man’s free will, nor his duty to love and serve God, and is consequently not opposed to the natural law.

The fact that slavery is not in itself intrinsically wrong can also be established from the fact that it is licit for one man or for society to have power over a man’s services or his acts. If a man can hire his labor out for a time, he can hire it out for life, as was the case of the serfs in Christendom. Likewise, if society has authority over a man to impose imprisonment or capital punishment for crimes, then it has the authority to impose a lesser sentence, such as the ownership of a man’s services.

http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__morality.htm#slavery


It is not permissible to perform Gospel music, either on TV or in public. For this kind of music is an expression of the false protestant religion, and is consequently an active participation in the propagation of a false religion. It is consequently not permissible to perform Gospel music in a nursing home.

http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__morality.htm#folkmusic


Just a sample, this site is full of gems!

if we can judge by some of the decisions that are handed down to us.

Sometimes I wonder whether John XXIII really existed, or whether I just
dreamed that he did.

And isn't it strange how his canonisation sits on the back burner, while
Jose Maria Escriva was fast-tracked to sainthood?

It doesn't surprise me. They were the ones who hemmed and hawed when John XXIII decided on the need for a council and tried everything to delay that council or get it turned into another series of condemnations against the modern world.

The Church can't adopt every religious fad that comes along, but Vatican thinking seems to be solidly rooted in
the early 20th century. Vatican II had solid support at the grass-roots level, and without that kind of support,
the hierarchy are facing a losing battle. Yes, they can continue to preach their outmoded ideas and claim sole
authority, but who will be listening?

I really do wonder whether they're will be some kind of split further down the track - I'd rather it didn't happen,
but how long can we continue with such a huge divide between the Vatican and the priests and people who live out in
the real world?

The thing about the Hierarchy is that they are solely responsible for choosing the next generation of leaders so unlike the United States, we can't even rely on the next generation.

I spent K-12 in progressive Catholic schools. We LOVED John XXIII. The thought that he wasn't popular among fellow Catholics never even crossed my mind.

and I loved John XXIII.

He was a major reason for finally making the switch.

They both share the same future.

everything would be just fine if it had never happened; that the seminaries and convents would be full, that everyone would be packed into the pews every Sunday. Understanding the message of Jesus aside, we've since discovered that things weren't exactly just fine back then, that a lot of cruelty was taking place in the seminaries, the convents and the churches. As frustrating as things are to day, I think it's a good idea to see where we might have ended up.

the the convents and seminaries are no longer full because women have good career options today and gays have a
life?

Mel Gibson - the extra crispy bucket of right wing Catholicism - had tried one time to blame Vatican II for the sex abuse crisis the church is now facing.

In the January 27, 2003 edition of Time magazine Gibson said that, "...Vatican II corrupted the institution of the church. Look at the main fruits: dwindling numbers and pedophilia."