Actually, the Judaeo-Christian culture (pace the AltRight's fevered yappings) is the foundational culture of Europe--all of it--and the Americas--ALL of them.

Oh Lord, Europe is even more messed up than we are. Catholicism has been heading toward the rocks for centuries there and here. That has accelerated in more recent times. I would like to see that change, but there isn't a snowball's chance with our current leadership, either political or religious.

On priests and bishops who won't allow Gregorian chant, Latin, or act weird at the mention of the EF - I would love to see someone stand straight up, look them square in the eye, and say 'father, you haven't the authority to forbid chant - the Second Vatican Council ordered that it be preserved and cultivated'. It would almost be worth losing one's 'job' for.

I believe this actually happens on a regular basis.

We should not take memories of the last few years of Steam, when everything was being run down, to be the rule.

True. Train buff here. They were beautiful machines meticulously maintained. Passenger service was excellent. Toward the end of steam when diesels were taking over, that changed and the "steamies" were let go. The diesels proved cheaper, needed fewer stops for fuel, and did not require the heavy maintenance steam engines needed. Standardized controls meant diesels of different manufacture could be used together. All this time the airlines were chipping away at passenger revenue.

Yes, this is true but this is only because the Church has not been able (partially due to incompetence) to point out that the infamous 'Enlightenment' is akin to the Emperor's new clothes, and secondly that the worship of Demos (democracy) is not really a good idea i.e. Two wolves and a sheep voting what to have for dinner, or two sheep and a wolf.

The church has been saturated with all the errors and trends followed by the secular society. I think Europe tends toward socialism more than to democracy. Seems like our current church leadership is doing the same.

I’m frustrated with all of the talk of the need for reform. Why not just dump the bad reforms to the Roman Office (pretty much all reforms have been bad ones!), dump the Holy Week of 1955, restore folded chasubles, dump feasts from the general calendar, drop most remaining feasts to semidouble and simplex, restore most but not all of the pre–1955 Octaves & eliminate the rules of 1911, privilege the Lenten ferial days, eliminate (or at least fix down) the feast of the Holy Family, and call it a day? I would also restore the rubrics of the Mass to their pre–1962 state. I realize the Council Fathers were likely happy that the Sacred Congregation of Rites had already dropped doubling the readings, but when you do it regularly, it makes so much sense.

There was no need to revise the baptism of infants or the supplying of rites, based on the council’s justification. Catechesis would suffice. It’s ironic that the catechumenate is restored but the Lenten liturgy which preserved the remnants was trashed. I’ll write more about this elsewhere, but my gut reaction is that the Fathers of Vatican II wrote a document and signed it with fingers crossed behind their backs.

more addressing and opposing the things some have put forth above:

http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/3306-the-revolution-of-vatican-ii-was-misinterpreted

often celebrated with sloppiness and often abuse.

I don't think I could bear to read it at all.

Yes.

Know Thine Enemy.

I have over a period of ten years (in the 90's) read numerous things on other spiritualities. Creation Spirituality, Masonry, Paganism, Witchcraft, Wicca, Aztec Culture, Luthernism, Protestantism, New Age (including deformed angelology and Harry Potter phenomenon), AMORC, Rossecrucianism, Charismatic Movement, Ascended Masters, Buddah, Vishnu, Hindu, Ying-Yang, Black and White Magic, Reike, Theosophy, christian Science, Scientology, Mormonism, Jehovas Witness, Ecumenism, Satanism and others. Also studies on heretical sects. Guess I owe it to myself to read the Bugnini too.

o.. i forgot one of my studies... Americanism

https://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/l13teste.htm

From the foregoing it is manifest, beloved son, that we are not able to give approval to those views which, in their collective sense, are called by some "Americanism." But if by this name are to be understood certain endowments of mind which belong to the American people, just as other characteristics belong to various other nations, and if, moreover, by it is designated your political condition and the laws and customs by which you are governed, there is no reason to take exception to the name. But if this is to be so understood that the doctrines which have been adverted to above are not only indicated, but exalted, there can be no manner of doubt that our venerable brethren, the bishops of America, would be the first to repudiate and condemn it as being most injurious to themselves and to their country. For it would give rise to the suspicion that there are among you some who conceive and would have the Church in America to be different from what it is in the rest of the world.

But the true church is one, as by unity of doctrine, so by unity of government, and she is catholic also. Since God has placed the center and foundation of unity in the chair of Blessed Peter, she is rightly called the Roman Church, for "where Peter is, there is the church." Wherefore, if anybody wishes to be considered a real Catholic, he ought to be able to say from his heart the selfsame words which Jerome addressed to Pope Damasus: "I, acknowledging no other leader than Christ, am bound in fellowship with Your Holiness; that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that the church was built upon him as its rock, and that whosoever gathereth not with you, scattereth."

We having thought it fitting, beloved son, in view of your high office, that this letter should be addressed specially to you. It will also be our care to see that copies are sent to the bishops of the United States, testifying again that love by which we embrace your whole country, a country which in past times has done so much for the cause of religion, and which will by the Divine assistance continue to do still greater things. To you, and to all the faithful of America, we grant most lovingly, as a pledge of Divine assistance, our apostolic benediction.

now really...

I can only imagine that 'post V II feminist progressivism' (or, for that matter, any sort of feminism) and 'divine' in the same sentence would be an utter oxymoron, and that the equation of them in anyone's mind would be symptomatic of grievous mental disorder. 'Now really', indeed! By what philological wizardry could anyone have connected the one with the other?

(And, who is Bette Midler???)

Bette Midler is Jewish.

Midler was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on December 1, 1945. She is the daughter of Ruth (Schindel), a seamstress, and Fred Midler, a painter. Her parents, originally from New Jersey, were both from Jewish immigrant families (from Russia, Poland, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire).

Couldn't be much worse, I suppose.

Oh, yes it could. Read Jungmann or de Chardin.

more...

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/roman.html

[excerpt]

"The most influential of the new liturgists, the great architect of the post-Vatican II liturgical revolution, was Father Annibale Bugnini. Father Bonneterre recounts a visit by Father Bugnini to a liturgical convention held at Thieulin near Chartres at which forty religious superiors and seminary rectors were present, making clear the extent of the influence of the liturgical Bolsheviks on the Church establishment in France. He cites a Father Duployé as stating:

Some days before the reunion at Thieulin, I had a visit from an Italian Lazarist, Fr. Bugnini, who had asked me to obtain an invitation for him. The Father listened very attentively, without saying a word, for four days. During our return journey to Paris, as the train was passing along the Swiss Lake at Versailles, he said to me: "I admire what you are doing, but the greatest service I can render you is never to say a word in Rome about all that I have just heard."

Father Bonneterre comments:

This revealing text shows us one of the first appearances of the "gravedigger of the Mass," a revolutionary more clever than the others, he who killed the Catholic liturgy before disappearing from the official scene. So it was at this date that the "Counter-Church" completely pervaded the Liturgical Movement. Until then it had been occupied by the modernist and ecumenical forces: after the war it was rotten enough for Freemasonry to take direct control of the reins: Satan got into the Trojan Horse.

The reference to Freemasonry is based on the fact that in 1975 Pope Paul VI removed Bugnini, an Archbishop by then, from his position as Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, dissolved the entire Congregation, and in 1976 exiled him as Nuncio to Iran. Pope Paul did this because he had been given documentation which convinced him that the Archbishop was a freemason. Bugnini denied that he was a mason, but accepted that he was dismissed because the Pope believed him to be a member of the Brotherhood. All the relevant documentation is contained in Chapter 24 of my book Pope Paul’s New Mass.

Father Bonneterre explains that:

Although the reforms of Pius XII had given some satisfaction to the leaders of the Movement, the implacable orthodoxy that the Pope had maintained throughout had not been to their taste. New and more daring reforms were called for, and they needed a pope who understood the problem of ecumenism and who was a wholehearted supporter of the Movement.

He claims that “The news of the death of the Angelic Pastor was received with almost delirious joy by the deviated Liturgical Movement.” The aged Dom Lambert Beauduin had not the least doubt as to the cardinal he hoped would be elected, and confided his hopes to Father Bouyer:

If they elect Roncalli," he said "all will be saved. He will be capable of calling a Council and canonizing ecumenism..." Silence fell; then, with a return of his old mischievousness, he said with flashing eyes, "I believe we have a good chance. Most of the cardinals are not sure what to do. They are capable of voting for him.

Father Bonneterre comments:

To consecrate ecumenism, yes, indeed, but also to consecrate the Liturgical Movement, such would be the task of the long-awaited Council. For more than forty years the new liturgists had been spreading their errors, they had succeeded in influencing a considerable portion of the Catholic hierarchy, and they had won some encouraging reforms from the Holy See. All this patient underground work was about to bear fruit. The liturgical revolutionaries took advantage of the Constitution on the Liturgy to get their ideas accepted. Then, when they were appointed members of the Consilium, they only had to draw the extreme conclusions from the principles of Vatican II.

Father Bonneterre insists that:

This new rite carries on in its turn all the errors which have come forth since the beginning of the deviations of the "Movement." This rite is ecumenical, antiquarian, community-based, democratic, and almost totally desacralized; it also echoes the theological deviations of the modernists and the Protestants: toning down the sense of the Real Presence and diminution of the ministerial role of the priesthood, of the sacrificial character of the Mass, and especially of its propitiatory character. The Eucharist becomes much more a communal love feast than the renewal of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

It is thus with the New Mass that the Liturgical Movement which had started so well ended so badly. The 1959 liturgy of the Protestant Taizé community is printed as an appendix to the book, and shows some disturbing similarities to the New Mass. Father Bonneterre does not, however, refer to the alarming correspondence of the changes, principally omissions, made to the Order of Mass in the Missal of St. Pius V in the concoction of the order of Mass in the 1970 Missal and the almost identical omissions from the Sarum Missal made by Thomas Cranmer in concocting his 1549 Communion Service. These are documented in great detail in my book Pope Paul’s New Mass. Nor does he refer to the equally alarming correspondence between the liturgical principles permeating the Mass of Paul VI and those of the pseudo-synod of Pistoia condemned as pernicious by Pope Pius VI in his encyclical Auctorem Fidei of 1794. I would also say that, in places, Father Bonneterre seems to presume that the rite of Mass concocted by Father Bugnini’s Consilium represents what the leading members of the Liturgical Movement were aiming at. This might be true in the case of the “young wolves” who took over the movement, but is certainly not true of priests such as Beauduin, Casel, Parsch, or Bouyer. The principal aim of these men was to use the existing liturgy to achieve their pastoral aims, and not to impose a radical reform which made the liturgy that they knew, loved, and celebrated daily unrecognizable. In fairness to Father Bonneterre he does state that the leading figures of the original movement were frightened by the thinking of the young wolves. I have quoted him to this effect in this review. It would have been useful had he quoted the reaction of a priest such as Father Louis Bouyer, whom he cites quite often, to the actual reform that has been foisted upon us. He stated in 1969 that "We must speak plainly: there is practically no liturgy worthy of the name today in the Catholic Church"[12]; and "Perhaps in no other area is there a greater distance (and even formal opposition) between what the Council worked out and what we actually have”[13]; and that, in practice, “those who took it upon themselves to apply [?] the Council’s directives on this point have turned their backs deliberately on what Beauduin, Casel, and Pius Parsch had set out to do, and to which I had tried vainly to add some small contribution of my own.”[14]

In 1975, Father Bouyer stated: "The Catholic liturgy has been overthrown under the pretext of rendering it more acceptable to the secularised masses, but in reality to conform it with the buffooneries that the religious orders were induced to impose, whether they liked it or not, upon the other clergy. We do not have to wait for the results: a sudden decline in religious practice, varying between twenty and forty per cent among those who were practising Catholics.... Those who were not have not displayed a trace of interest in this pseudo-missionary liturgy, particularly the young whom they had deluded themselves into thinking that they would win over with their clowning.[15]

(cont'd...)

The reference to Freemasonry is based on the fact that in 1975 Pope Paul VI removed Bugnini, an Archbishop by then, from his position as Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, dissolved the entire Congregation, and in 1976 exiled him as Nuncio to Iran.

This seems sloppy.
In 1969 the Consilium was dissolved and folded into the SCDWS.
Did the SCDWS disappear or get renamed .. and when?

1969-may-08
Sacra Rituum Congregatio
Latin:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690508_sacra-rituum-congregatio_lt.html
Italian:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690508_sacra-rituum-congregatio_it.html

Francis,

EVERYTHING on the Vatican website was put there after 1969.

everything posted on the Vatican website after 1969

It could just be the economics of going back and scanning all those documents. Other organizations, such as newspapers and historical archives have run into the same.

No, it's true and very costly. As a former librarian, I am well aware of the costs of gathering materials, deciding what is even relevant and worth digitizing, buying equipment, hiring people and also the significant costs of indexing so you can even find anything when you want it. Perhaps someone has made the decision that the older documents are not as relevant or worth the cost.

Could Francis have a point, given what the present Bishop of Rome has as his spending priorities? His Holiness has demonstrated an allergy to the traditional modes of operating, and an utter disdain for people who are attached to the traditional modes of thinking, teaching and worshipping.

Who knows, or better yet, how could we possibly know? It is entirely possible.

And never confuse education with competence either. Sometimes, they don't come in the same package.

Nor knowledge with wisdom.

(Nor being smart with being wise.)

well... that didn't take long...

https://onepeterfive.com/italian-liturgist-alleged-to-be-working-on-ecumenical-mass-transubstantiation-is-not-a-dogma

here we go, just as I was saying a few weeks ago. people will think (or maybe they don't even care anymore) that they will be receiving communion when all they will really be doing is having some crackers and a sip of wine.

That won't be "foreign" for long, my friend.

only since WW2

Don't care when the term originated. Clearly, the Church (and most of her heretical offspring) have not abrogated, nor obrogated, the 10 Commandments which are about as "Judaeo" as they can be.