I think I finally understand why so many Trads view St. Escriv'a in such a negative light. It's all about the impact he had on the second Vatican Council and his teaching about the universal call to personal holiness through the ordinary and the responsibility each of us as members of the mystical body share in doing God's work in the world. The Council taught that leading others to salvation is no longer exclusively the domain of priests and religious, each of us as members of the royal priesthood are called upon to witness and work in the world and bring as many souls as possible to the narrow path that leads to eternal life.
After reading this short bio of his life, to me he appears to have been a great saint.
http://www.frcoulter.com/presentations/escrivatalk.html
I didn't know Escriva had an impact in Vatican II. I think it was almost exclusively Paul VI working behind the scenes with some of his change agents. Was Escriva a change agent?
We lead others to salvation by introducing them to the teachings of the Catholic Church and the Sacraments. It has always been the domain of the layperson to do this task...
...that's the purpose of large Catholic families (something that is becoming pretty rare in novus ordo land)
The council taught? What? And if these teachings were so efficacious why did the Church see such a precipitous drop after VII? Now, if you want to say that the council instituted a replacement church, then I'm in full agreement. Please don't say the transmission was bad because at no time in the history of the world were mass communications more efficient and cost effective than the post-1950 world (it has since become on steroids and full of lies too but that's another issue.)
The following question isn't directed to Rows but to anyone who feels they can answer it.
Did Vatican II invent the concept of the laity as a "royal priesthood"?
But this question is directed toward Rows:
What exactly is saintly about Escriva? I'd like someone to help me understand.