Can we judge Vatican II by its fruit?

[cathguy]

But what about the missing detail that a huge recession hit just as Ford unveiled their new line of vehicles?

I think Davies gives a good analogy, but he’s not really denying the rationality of post hoc non ergo propter hoc. He seems to be saying that in certain situations, the connection is just plain obvious. It seems more like an appeal to pragmatism than a logical rebuttal.

I think I’m beginning to see both sides now, though. We don’t want to jump the gun in our logical deductions, but neither do we want to ignore the obvious. I definitely have to give it more thought.

Yeah…

Reading Davies is always challenging.

And a caveat emptor… it isn’t fair for me to be arguing in this forum with his book open in my lap. He is probably the greatest apologist for traditional Catholic praxis who has lived post the Council. He is also one of the most civil and kind writers, even while he suffered greatly for the Church… I absolutely love his work.

Cardinal Ratzinger himself praised his work upon Davies’ passing.

So, one strike against me for not fighting entirely fair!

Peace!

 

[archangel04]

The thesis that the problem with the Church in the second half of the twentieth century is that She has lost much of Her identity in the wake of the changes following the Council is a good one. The solution would be to rediscover and bring back our Catholic identity wherever possible.

Peace!

I agree completely to this statement. Reform needs to be done as soon as possible, but always remember the saying, “be careful what you wish for.” Reason I say this is, because if there is to be reform, what kind will it be? Will it swing so far to the right, that many of the post V-2 would leave, because they are not familiar with the old ways of the Church? Or can it swing even farther left that the Church looses even more of her identity. I hope reformation(good one) gets here soon, but agree with the one poster who said we should take the good, and drop the bad, hence we should take the good from pre-V2 and leave the bad where it belongs, in the past.

By the way great find on the statement by Ratzinger (now B-16)

 

[ProVobis]

This “decline” was actually well on its was before the council was convened. People “remember the good ol’ days.” I hate tr break it to you, but the “good ol’ days” exist only in our minds. Instead of looking around for someone to blame for what you perceive to be problems, wouldn’t energy be better spent looking for solutions?

If you’re looking for an exact before and after date for the decline, it may have very well been a few years before in certain areas of the world, but the fact is that the decline did occur during the late 50’s and 60’s and 70’s. In some areas of the world such as Asia and Africa, there was a rise in the faith, however.

 

[cathguy]

I agree completely to this statement. Reform needs to be done as soon as possible, but always remember the saying, “be careful what you wish for.” Reason I say this is, because if there is to be reform, what kind will it be? Will it swing so far to the right, that many of the post V-2 would leave, because they are not familiar with the old ways of the Church? Or can it swing even farther left that the Church looses even more of her identity. I hope reformation(good one) gets here soon, but agree with the one poster who said we should take the good, and drop the bad, hence we should take the good from pre-V2 and leave the bad where it belongs, in the past.

By the way great find on the statement by Ratzinger (now B-16)

Absolutely correct. Slowly… slowly… and with much catechesis as we go.

Here is the thing:
The laity will react with shock-waves and loss of faith to massive changes in liturgical praxis. Consider what happened to the poor laity in England during the reformation. Consider what happened with the massive and quick top-down changes imposed post the Council.

NO. Slowly… slowly… with charity and catechesis accompanying every little step.

No more massive top down top heavy changes in abuse of the laity in the pews… to one extreme or another…

Good warning… and great post!

 

[cathguy]

If you’re looking for an exact before and after date for the decline, it may have very well been a few years before in certain areas of the world, but the fact is that the decline did occur during the late 50’s and 60’s and 70’s. In some areas of the world such as Asia and Africa, there was a rise in the faith, however.

This is, as usual with you, a VERY good point ProVobis.

I think it is arguable that the liturgical changes in the Council enabled and encouraged the growth of the Church in Africa.

The Church in Africa continues to thrive, and priests from places like Nigeria are here in the US in large numbers.

It is as if the former mission countries are sending missionaries to the West in an attempt to re-claim it for Christ.

Could this have been God’s plan?

I would add this:

African liturgical sensibilities are not Western ones, and for the West to be reclaimed as Christendom, I think we need to discover our roots.

SO…

Perhaps it does not make sense to encourage and push things like the EF in Africa. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t make sense in Europe and the US.

Perhaps,by protecting Vatican II and promoting traditional Catholic praxis in the West, Ratzinger is putting the ground work in place for a renewal of the Church in Europe and the West, while at the same time encouraging continued growth in places like Africa?

 

[ProVobis]

Good bye and good riddance to the pre V2 Church.

This type of thinking has become really a problem as it almost states a belief that there indeed has been a new Church, and if that’s the case, it has to be schismatic by definition.

The Church has been the same since Christ. Just because you didn’t like the situation prior to Vatican II doesn’t make it different.

 

[crazzeto]

I think what we will find is that VII will be a source of renewal, now that we have leaders who better grasp it, and are trying to reform the church to be compliant with what it actually taught. I do agree that this will be (for good reason) done slowly, over time rather than all at once shocking the system.

It’s clear that the all at once approch attempted in the 60’s resulted in many grave errors in implementation. We don’t want the same thing happening all over again.

 

[Elizabeth502]

For better or worse, Pope John thought (before he saw what was happening) that he was inspired by God to convene the Council.

We know that the Holy Spirit does not work this way normally. The Holy Ghost prevents Popes from proclaiming error through the Magesterium. That’s it. For a Pope to read more into his relationship with the Holy Spirit is dangerous.

Speaking of charity, I’m not sure exactly what your point is, but so far I find the tone distasteful and full of insinuation. You seem to be implying that Pope John XXIII was uniquely not inspired by the Holy Spirit, whereas all the other Popes supposedly were. You would know that if you were God, and under no other conditions would you know that or could you dare to imply that.

Unlike for some CAF members, V2 is not my obsession. I’m well read in it, lived through it, survived it fine, took the best out of it, and have nothing but admiration for the Pope who convened it. He’s not a villain to me; he didn’t lack the Holy Spirit. However, I have read some modern commentary on it, and I have to agree having watched the suddenness of its effects (good and bad), that moderate voices conclude that parish response to it spun out of control due to lack of leadership. The theory espoused was splendid and eloquent; the practical guidance to shape that theory on the ground seemed not to have yet been formed sufficiently, resulting in chaos.

But understand that there were also extremes (alluded to by other posters) in preV2. When one extreme meets another, and lacks the bridge of leadership, disintegration often results, in any system or institution or field of thought. This has happened in the fields of education, psychology, and within some academic disciplines which lose their center when they start operating only on the fringes.

Those who study history (I am one) know that movements rarely occur in a vacuum. This has been said often by other posters on other threads concerning different topics. No matter how insular the RCC has believed itself to be, it has never not been influenced (not controlled, just influenced) by events outside its structure. A convergence of social change was emerging at the very time the Council was convening. Unfortunately those in the forefront of that social change used, selectively, some themes of V2 to advance that change both within and without the Church, meaning that some change was not authentic, nor true to the message of the Council. Probably three-fourths of the “stuff” that happened within the Church, immediately (and I agree, rapidly) after V2 had much more to do with pressures from society at large than with the documents of V2; probably the other fourth had absolutely everything to do with a vacuum of leadership regarding how to implement V2: what would its boundaries and mandates be? How would new liturgies look, etc.? However, unlike those interested in pointing fingers, I can imagine that church leaders may have become overwhelmed with simply the hemorrhaging of personnel (nuns leaving, priests getting maried, etc.) When Novitate class after Novitiate class goes from 43 novices to one novice, overnight, and that pattern is repeated exponentially, those in charge have more to worry about than how to implement Council documents.

 

[Joe_5859]

I agree completely to this statement. Reform needs to be done as soon as possible, but always remember the saying, “be careful what you wish for.” Reason I say this is, because if there is to be reform, what kind will it be? Will it swing so far to the right, that many of the post V-2 would leave, because they are not familiar with the old ways of the Church? Or can it swing even farther left that the Church looses even more of her identity. I hope reformation(good one) gets here soon, but agree with the one poster who said we should take the good, and drop the bad, hence we should take the good from pre-V2 and leave the bad where it belongs, in the past.

By the way great find on the statement by Ratzinger (now B-16)

I would say that reform is not only some future reality that we need to start, but it is also currently underway.

I don’t think the point will ever arrive that the Church will say “Okay, we’re reformed now. We have arrived.” The Church will always need reformation. I think Pope Benedict is hard at work towards this end already.

As cathguy astutely observed, it happens slowly and with much charity and catechesis. At least, that’s the way it needs to happen to really take hold.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Can not really vote in this poll as Vatican II has been mostly hijacked by the “spirit” of Vatican II people.

They are doing things that are not from the actual documents of Vatican II but are of its “spirit” that they determine for them selves separate from the Chruch and the actual Council.

 

[malphono]

But what about the missing detail that a huge recession hit just as Ford unveiled their new line of vehicles?

Perhaps a different analogy might be food for thought: Coca-Cola comes to mind here.

Think back to 1985 when Coca-Cola was trying to stimulate sales and introduced “New Coke.” What happened? Sales plummeted. Maybe a small handful of new customers but a whole lot of lost “old” customers. (None of which is surprising since the stuff was thick, far too sweet, and, well, just plain vile, but I digress.) But of course, the company reacted, if in stages: first they began producing the “Old Coke” again in limited quantities, then in greater quantity, and ultimately they killed the much-touted “new” formula and went back exclusively to the one that was tried and true.

In the absence of a “new” product, would sales have plummeted anyway, or did the “new” product cause the plummet? Of course this is merely speculation, but it would seem that sales while were lagging in the first place, the introduction of that “new” product was the catalyst that made them fall faster and greater. Once the “new” product was history, sales rebounded and stabilized.

 

[malphono]

Can not really vote in this poll as Vatican II has been mostly hijacked by the “spirit” of Vatican II people.

This is one of those unusual cases where we actually agree. It’s a big part of the reason that I cannot and will not vote in this poll.

 

[Joe_5859]

Perhaps a different analogy might be food for thought: Coca-Cola comes to mind here.

Think back to 1985 when Coca-Cola was trying to stimulate sales and introduced “New Coke.” What happened? Sales plummeted. Maybe a small handful of new customers but a whole lot of lost “old” customers. (None of which is surprising since the stuff was thick, far too sweet, and, well, just plain vile, but I digress.) But of course, the company reacted, if in stages: first they began producing the “Old Coke” again in limited quantities, then in greater quantity, and ultimately they killed the much-touted “new” formula and went back exclusively to the one that was tried and true.

In the absence of a “new” product, would sales have plummeted anyway, or did the “new” product cause the plummet? Of course this is merely speculation, but it would seem that sales while were lagging in the first place, the introduction of that “new” product was the catalyst that made them fall faster and greater. Once the “new” product was history, sales rebounded and stabilized.

The problem with that situation as an analogy is that the company did change it back and the sales increased again. This is evidence that there was a causal relationship. If the Church were to ever repudiate Vatican II and/or go back to the way it was before the Council and Catholicism grew as a result, then we might be able to more definitively say that the Council caused a decline.

 

[archangel04]

This is, as usual with you, a VERY good point ProVobis.

I think it is arguable that the liturgical changes in the Council enabled and encouraged the growth of the Church in Africa.

The Church in Africa continues to thrive, and priests from places like Nigeria are here in the US in large numbers.

It is as if the former mission countries are sending missionaries to the West in an attempt to re-claim it for Christ.

Could this have been God’s plan?

I would add this:

**African liturgical sensibilities are not Western ones, and for the West to be reclaimed as Christendom, I think we need to discover our roots.

SO…

Perhaps it does not make sense to encourage and push things like the EF in Africa. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t make sense in Europe and the US**.

Perhaps,by protecting Vatican II and promoting traditional Catholic praxis in the West, Ratzinger is putting the ground work in place for a renewal of the Church in Europe and the West, while at the same time encouraging continued growth in places like Africa?

Exactly! If you ever take a look at a Mass in Africa, it is different from ours. It would not make sence to force the whole Catholic world to celebre only in TLM (as some people wish to do), the TLM has more of a European culture in it (I personally love it). Should it be introduce to other parts of the world? Sure why not? Just as other Rites should be introduce to the Western world.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This is one of those unusual cases where we actually agree. It’s a big part of the reason that I cannot and will not vote in this poll.

I think we may agree more than you realize.

 

[cathguy]

Speaking of charity, I’m not sure exactly what your point is, but so far I find the tone distasteful and full of insinuation. You seem to be implying that Pope John XXIII was uniquely not inspired by the Holy Spirit, whereas all the other Popes supposedly were. You would know that if you were God, and under no other conditions would you know that or could you dare to imply that.

No. Please. Charity sometimes requires knowledge, and forethought. I know this so I assume no ill will on your part.

Here is what you are missing:

The Holy Spirit protects Pope’s from proclaiming error through the Magesterium. End of story.

He does NOT protect them from their historical decisions… nor does He inspire them in their every action. Some Catholics… especially those attached to modern apologists like those at Catholic Answers… seem to think that Pope’s cannot err… EVER.

How do you explain then the following:
A Pope authorizing an attack on the Byzantines when the Byzantines were threatened by the Infidel, to benefit his native France?

A Pope having his mistress be the model for a painting in Rome of the Madonna?

Need I go on?

By the way… these examples come from Warren Carroll’s History of Christendom Series. Not a protestant source.

Theologically speaking, the Holy Spirit protects Popes from error in faith and morals when teaching through the Magesterium. He does NOT inspire their every decision. Are you a charismatic? I ask because this a common mistake some charismatics make.

Unlike for some CAF members, V2 is not my obsession. I’m well read in it, lived through it, survived it fine, took the best out of it, and have nothing but admiration for the Pope who convened it. He’s not a villain to me; he didn’t lack the Holy Spirit.

CHARITY!!!

Also, historical knowledge and theological understanding. I did NOT say that Pope John lacked the Holy Spirit. CHARITY. And forethought. We can’t discuss these things without certain preparation.

The Holy Spirit does not inspire Popes in their historical decisions. I am sorry me saying so offends you. But a knowledge of history proves this.

The only qualifier I will add is I am NOT saying that the Holy Sprit can NEVER inspire a Pope’s historical decision. That would be a heresy itself. Normally, the vast majority of the time even, the Holy Spirit does not work in this extraordinary way.

I wish you no ill will. Peace!

 

[cathguy]

Can not really vote in this poll as Vatican II has been mostly hijacked by the “spirit” of Vatican II people.

They are doing things that are not from the actual documents of Vatican II but are of its “spirit” that they determine for them selves separate from the Chruch and the actual Council.

Good point! And well taken!

How would you reword the Poll to make it more effective and allow your participation?

 

[Genesis315]

I think it’s too soon. The Christological heresies continued to get worse directly after their respective Councils in some cases for centuries.

Vatican II as an event definitely seemed to spark a ton of problems–but I personally cannot see yet where those problems were a result of fidelity to the decrees/constitutions/etc. In fact, they are usually in direct contradiction. Sadly, the Popes and bishops tolerated all the problems (and maybe they had no choice since they became so widespread–which is nothing new, St. Callistus I with the Sabellians and St. Sixtus II with the re-baptizers come to mind).

 

[malphono]

The problem with that situation as an analogy is that the company did change it back and the sales increased again. This is evidence that there was a causal relationship. If the Church were to ever repudiate Vatican II and/or go back to the way it was before the Council and Catholicism grew as a result, then we might be able to more definitively say that the Council caused a decline.

Yes, but keep in mind that sales were lagging in the first place, hence the dalliance with the “new” formula. I used the analogy mainly to bolster the idea of the catalyst.

Bl PP John XXIII called a Council because he believed a certain amount of “fresh air” was needed (which is, of course, why I used the “fresh air” analogy in a previous post) to invigorate the Church. (IOW, sales were lagging or at least stagnant.) In both cases, the perceived need for stimulation was there. The “new” formula for Coke did not start the sales lag, but it evidently made it worse, else it would not have been withdrawn from the market. And that leads back to the Council: as I see things, it, too, did not start the decline, but it appears that the pervasive misinterpretation of its decrees was a major factor in making the decline much worse.

Anyway, it’s just food for thought.

 

[cathguy]

I think it’s too soon. The Christological heresies continued to get worse directly after their respective Councils in some cases for centuries.

Vatican II as an event definitely seemed to spark a ton of problems–but I personally cannot see yet where those problems were a result of fidelity to the decrees/constitutions/etc. In fact, they are usually in direct contradiction. Sadly, the Popes and bishops tolerated all the problems (and maybe they had no choice since they became so widespread–which is nothing new, St. Callistus I with the Sabellians and St. Sixtus II with the re-baptizers come to mind).

This is a very good point.

The only caveat I would add is here: Vatican II addressed no heresy. It was a pastoral Council only that was supposed to renew the Church so I think the parallel you are drawing breaks down a bit.,