It is currently Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:40 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
 Pre-Vatican 2 manuals were burned after V-2 
Author Message

Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 42
New post Pre-Vatican 2 manuals were burned after V-2
I have seen this claim made in several places, that the pre-Vatican 2 manuals were either burned or shelved or simply abandoned and not used anymore, but I have not seen actual proof yet. I suppose getting into a Novus Ordo seminary to check or asking a NO presbyter would solve the issue, but anyways, does anyone here have any actual proof for this?

I have thought for a while that it must be interesting to know what they use in the Novus Ordo seminaries now.


Sat Aug 02, 2014 4:08 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Pre-Vatican 2 manuals were burned after V-2
Perhaps you could contact Fr. Michael Oswalt who went through a Novus Ordo seminary and, after his Novus Ordo ordination realized the problems of the ordination and the new church. He then sought training as a true priest and was eventually ordained by Bishop Pivarunas, CMRI and currently works with the CMRI. He would know what sort of books a typical Novus Ordo seminary uses.


Sat Aug 02, 2014 12:48 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:58 am
Posts: 50
Location: Massachusetts, USA
New post Re: Pre-Vatican 2 manuals were burned after V-2
Iugiter wrote:
I have seen this claim made in several places, that the pre-Vatican 2 manuals were either burned or shelved or simply abandoned and not used anymore, but I have not seen actual proof yet. I suppose getting into a Novus Ordo seminary to check or asking a NO presbyter would solve the issue, but anyways, does anyone here have any actual proof for this?

I have thought for a while that it must be interesting to know what they use in the Novus Ordo seminaries now.


In the classroom they do not use anything written prior to V2. If they reference anything from before V2 such as the Fathers of the Church, they do so through the lens on V2. Everything is re-interpreted in the light of V2. At the seminary I went to there were still old books on the shelves in the library but they were rarely read by the seminarians and whenever they were read, anything that seemed to conflict with the new theology would be dismissed. I don't think I was the only one who honestly believed that what we were being taught was what Christ taught to the Apostles. The only battleground that any of us were aware of was the differences between liberals and conservatives. To give a concrete example, the Introductory Biblical Studies course used Fr. Raymond Brown's book as the main text. Both the liberals and the conservatives accepted this. Although the conservatives might have been a little uncomfortable with Fr. Brown denying the Immaculate Conception and if I'm not mistaken he even denied the virgin birth of Our Lord (and thus the perpetual virginity of Our Lady). I remember the theology courses were taught by a well-known Dominican priest who had published several books and was almost worshipped by the conservatives. He was a thomist but somehow he was able to base one of his courses on JPII's Fides et Ratio. I remember one seminarian who adored JPII was constantly trying to reconcile JPII's personalism and existentialism with thomism. It was very confusing. But the main emphasis is turning out good social workers not priests who actually have a deep understanding of the Church's doctrine.

One interesting thing about books is this: libraries are always going through their inventory to cull books that are either too worn out or not interesting. The seminary library was no different. They used to pile the books they were getting rid of in the lobby, free for the taking. I noticed that the books were almost always books from the 60s and 70s that were considered out-of-date. Rarely did anyone take one.


Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:21 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Pre-Vatican 2 manuals were burned after V-2
Well, I spent 6 years in a "conservative" novus ordo seminary. The first point I'd make is that it is symptomatic of the novus ordo to be extremely heterogeneous in its "teaching". The picture painted by the contributor above is entirely different to my experience as would be expected in the novus ordo- nothing is proposed with any authority. So, for example, in the philosophy years, we used Mgr Glenn's textbooks amongst others (Fr Copleston's history, Fr Woodbury's notes etc). Philosophy was taught by a thorough going Thomist. Other professors included an almost 100 year old priest who taught logic using texts as antiquated. A first year remedial catechism course was given using "Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine" by Sheehan- revised in the light (sic) of VII by one of our theology professors (although as far as I can tell the revision doesn't do much more than point out places where VII manages to coincide with Catholic doctrine). We had a priest lecture for a semester in a subject called "Biblical Theology" who prefaced his remarks by saying that the whole subject was protestant and shouldn't be taught (he instead gave us a semester on angelology- fascinating). This same priest used to fulminate against Wojtyla and publicly refused to read anything by Ratzinger- "European theologians" was a particularly vituperative insult for him (he volubly protested that Rahner and Balthasar and so on were heretics- as well as being "boring"). Raymond Brown, we were taught was a very dubious author. In theology we used a lot of encyclicals from Pius XII. In ecclesiology we studied Mystici Corporis in some detail; liturgy was Mediator Dei; a course on "Creation, Sin and Grace" dwelt on Humani Generis and the Biblical Commission's 1912(?) document on Genesis. We were taught that evolution was unproved and- on the face of it, literally ridiculous. The historicity of the Gospels was strongly insisted on; 3 years of Latin were given and the ability to read St Thomas and the code in Latin (as well as the Missal and Breviary of course) promoted. In moral and sacramental theology, we used Fr Kelly SJ for the sacrament of penance; I can't remember what else we used but I dare say it was old. I often thought that our course of studies would have to be altered very little if the documents of VII were repudiated. As a matter of course, our lecturers and their materials would frequently interpolate references to the documents of VII, but as footnotes as jt were of historical interest: No one tried to claim that a proposition was proven because it appeared in VII.
The whole exercise was a gigantic effort of ignoring the elephant. No one seriously tried to reconcile all the good stuff with VII. We just ignored those documents by and large- although we'd quote regularly and enthusiastically orthodox snippets from the council principally to demonstrate to naysayers that we were "men of the council".
Discipline was I imagine no different to what you'd find in a traditional or pre-concilliar seminary, with the hours recited in the chapel, meditation, Mass, daily rosary, etc.
As I say, the entire process was (unintentionally) anaesthetic. One simply gave no thought to the contradictions inherent in what we were up to. And for that reason, it could be a far more dangerous environment for the faith than a wildly liberal seminary. But equally, having lived in that sort of environment, I'd never doubt that there are Catholics in the novus ordo milieu- and quite possibly saints too.


Wed Aug 06, 2014 6:24 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 42
New post Re: Pre-Vatican 2 manuals were burned after V-2
James Francis wrote:
Well, I spent 6 years in a "conservative" novus ordo seminary. The first point I'd make is that it is symptomatic of the novus ordo to be extremely heterogeneous in its "teaching". The picture painted by the contributor above is entirely different to my experience as would be expected in the novus ordo- nothing is proposed with any authority. So, for example, in the philosophy years, we used Mgr Glenn's textbooks amongst others (Fr Copleston's history, Fr Woodbury's notes etc). Philosophy was taught by a thorough going Thomist. Other professors included an almost 100 year old priest who taught logic using texts as antiquated. A first year remedial catechism course was given using "Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine" by Sheehan- revised in the light (sic) of VII by one of our theology professors (although as far as I can tell the revision doesn't do much more than point out places where VII manages to coincide with Catholic doctrine). We had a priest lecture for a semester in a subject called "Biblical Theology" who prefaced his remarks by saying that the whole subject was protestant and shouldn't be taught (he instead gave us a semester on angelology- fascinating). This same priest used to fulminate against Wojtyla and publicly refused to read anything by Ratzinger- "European theologians" was a particularly vituperative insult for him (he volubly protested that Rahner and Balthasar and so on were heretics- as well as being "boring"). Raymond Brown, we were taught was a very dubious author. In theology we used a lot of encyclicals from Pius XII. In ecclesiology we studied Mystici Corporis in some detail; liturgy was Mediator Dei; a course on "Creation, Sin and Grace" dwelt on Humani Generis and the Biblical Commission's 1912(?) document on Genesis. We were taught that evolution was unproved and- on the face of it, literally ridiculous. The historicity of the Gospels was strongly insisted on; 3 years of Latin were given and the ability to read St Thomas and the code in Latin (as well as the Missal and Breviary of course) promoted. In moral and sacramental theology, we used Fr Kelly SJ for the sacrament of penance; I can't remember what else we used but I dare say it was old. I often thought that our course of studies would have to be altered very little if the documents of VII were repudiated. As a matter of course, our lecturers and their materials would frequently interpolate references to the documents of VII, but as footnotes as jt were of historical interest: No one tried to claim that a proposition was proven because it appeared in VII.
The whole exercise was a gigantic effort of ignoring the elephant. No one seriously tried to reconcile all the good stuff with VII. We just ignored those documents by and large- although we'd quote regularly and enthusiastically orthodox snippets from the council principally to demonstrate to naysayers that we were "men of the council".
Discipline was I imagine no different to what you'd find in a traditional or pre-concilliar seminary, with the hours recited in the chapel, meditation, Mass, daily rosary, etc.
As I say, the entire process was (unintentionally) anaesthetic. One simply gave no thought to the contradictions inherent in what we were up to. And for that reason, it could be a far more dangerous environment for the faith than a wildly liberal seminary. But equally, having lived in that sort of environment, I'd never doubt that there are Catholics in the novus ordo milieu- and quite possibly saints too.


That's interesting, where is this seminary?


Wed Aug 06, 2014 6:01 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Pre-Vatican 2 manuals were burned after V-2
Country New South Wales


Wed Aug 06, 2014 10:34 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.