I am of an age remembering when every Catholic Church had the same
Faith, beliefs, and Rituals.
Then came Vatican 2.  In my first V2 Class in 1965. It was taught
there, "Forget what those good nuns taught you in Catechism
Class." We are starting all over again.
The last time that this was heard was during the Protestant Reformation
in which if you did not swallow the official line, you head would be
rolling off.
I attended the 30th reunion of my High School Class and I saw the
results, not one of my former classmates were practicing their
Catholic Faith. Some left years before to Protestant sects. And
many were not practicing their faith. Some I knew since First
Grade in the Fall of 1953.

It's actually a great blessing -- a bolstering of your Faith -- to see that you are certainly doing the right thing. To see the hard, scientific evidence -- the proof -- of what the Novus Ordo religion does to lives.

In 1970, people could say, "Obedience! Give it a chance!" and they had more excuse.

Today, looking at the wasteland of the Church, it's hard to excuse Vatican II without some serious willful blindness.

.

This whole thread is gibberish.  (Referring to the thread title and the abject failure of its author to provide any backup for this ridiculous claim -- even while other posting members have done their best to make sense of the nonsense.)

The two references, out of which Jehanne obtained these quips (below, from the first page of the thread), are quotes from Lawrence M. Krauss (professor of "cosmology") who is no more Catholic than he is "agnostic."  He is clearly secular and atheist, even if he doesn't think that of himself.  He scoffs at everything the Church teaches -- because that's the spirit of our age -- while pretending not to care about the Church or what it teaches, because he can sell copy that way.  People listen to his nonsense because their heads are full of mush in the first place.  His contempt of the very notion of religion is palpable and he is mystified how anyone can presume that he'll have any part of a discussion involving religion.  The first venue begins with these two paragraphs (notice how he implies equivalency of religion with witchcraft and astrology):

Last week, I had the opportunity to participate in several exciting panel discussions at the World Science Festival in New York City. But the most dramatic encounter took place at the panel strangely titled "Science, Faith and Religion." I had been conscripted to join the panel after telling one of the organizers that I saw no reason to have it. After all, there was no panel on science and astrology, or science and witchcraft. So why one on science and religion?

I ended up being one of two panelists labeled "atheists." The other was philosopher Colin McGinn. On the other side of the debate were two devoutly Catholic scientists, biologist Kenneth Miller and Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno. Mr. McGinn began by commenting that it was eminently rational to suppose that Santa Claus doesn't exist even if one cannot definitively prove that he doesn't. Likewise, he argued, we can apply the same logic to the supposed existence of God. The moderator of the session, Bill Blakemore, a reporter with some religious inclination, surprised me by bursting out in response, "Then I guess you are a rational atheist."

I would take issue with his claim that Guy Consolmagno is a "devout Catholic."  Nor is he agnostic.  But he is very intelligent.

Catholics are not agnostics, and if you think they are then you don't know what agnostic means.

It's worse than that:

Quote from: Lawrence M. Krauss

When I confronted my two Catholic colleagues on the panel with the apparent miracle of the virgin birth and asked how they could reconcile this with basic biology, I was ultimately told that perhaps this biblical claim merely meant to emphasize what an important event the birth was. Neither came to the explicit defense of what is undeniably one of the central tenets of Catholic theology.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124597314928257169

Quote from: Lawrence M. Krauss

Now, in fact, I would argue most people who even call themselves religious choose reason over God for many reasons. Most people who believe in the ʝʊdɛօ-Christian God, don’t really believe in most part—the way—people are happy to call themselves Christians or Jєωs, but they, but they pick and choose from the Scriptures. They say, well, Jonah didn’t live inside a whale. You know, I don’t really like the idea that Lot told the, the people of Sodom—he said, O.K., rape my daughters because I don’t want to you rape the angels. So go rape my daughters because they are just women, and women are chattel, and it’s O.K. I doubt many Catholics actually believe—in fact, I would be amazed to find any, including priests, who believe that when a priest blesses a wafer it turns into the body of a first century Jєω. I was on a stage with several people from the Vatican—the Vatican astronomer and, and several colleagues of mine: religious Catholics—and I asked them if any of them believed in the virgin birth and not one of them would said they did.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/life-the-universe-and-nothing-is-it-reasonable-to-believe-there-is-a-go

Then let Francis "come out of the closet" and state, clearly, that he believes that the Loaves & Fishes account in the Gospels was, in fact, a true miracle.  Consider this:

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=525

The late Father Raymond Brown was praised widely by the post-Vatican II Popes.  This is whom the SSPX is trying to "reconcile" with.