Can we judge Vatican II by its fruit?

[cathguy]

This is a spin off of another thread: favorite Popes… didn’t want to derail that thread… so I am starting a new one.

I am just starting “Pope John’s Council” by the great Michael Davies. It is scholarly and very well written.

In the favorite Popes thread, many have mentioned what they regard as the positive effects of the Second Vatican Council and have mentioned post-Conciliar Popes as their favorites, even though these Popes, (objectively speaking here, the data are plentiful) presided over the greatest and most steep decline in the history of the Church.

It is clear to me that the Second Vatican Council caused a great and steep decline in the Church. The documents are without error yes. The Holy Ghost protects the Church from proclaiming error in its conciliar documents. But that does NOT mean that all Councils are well written, historically fortuitous, wisely convened, or well received.

What say you?

 

[ProVobis]

There was Pope John’s Council and there was Pope Paul’s Council. Seems as if they were initiated differently. Pope John called the council of his own initiative. Pope Paul was pressured to continue it in spite of the supposed “Stop the council, stop the council” warnings of Pope John on his deathbed. Pope John never signed a single document, perhaps because the council was hijacked by those who brought and insisted on a different agenda. What came out of Pope Paul’s council is what the end product looked like, however.

 

[CWBetts]

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?

 

[cathguy]

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?

I would request… in this thread especially… that we work especially hard to be charitable.

That means not reading into things that may or may not be there.

Here is what the data show:

1. A very steep decline post the Council. I mean fast. Some seminaries and convents literally emptied almost overnight
2. Incredibly quick liturgical changes and deformations, many of which constituted abuses

As Davies points out, it is nearly impossible to argue that the changes were positive.

Solutions, friend, can only be found when we ask the right questions, and understand the problem.

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!

 

[cathguy]

There was Pope John’s Council and there was Pope Paul’s Council. Seems as if they were initiated differently. Pope John called the council of his own initiative. Pope Paul was pressured to continue it in spite of the supposed “Stop the council, stop the council” warnings of Pope John on his deathbed. Pope John never signed a single document, perhaps because the council was hijacked by those who brought and insisted on a different agenda. What came out of Pope Paul’s council is what the end product looked like, however.

Yes, I think this is true.

The “stop the Council” warnings were solid… but were too late.

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.

As for the fruits, let me quote Pope Benedict (when he was Cardinal Ratzinger)

“Certainly the results [of Vatican II] seem cruelly opposed to the expectations of everyone, beginning wtih those of Pope John XXIII and then of Pope Paul VI: expected was a new Catholic unity and instead we have been exposed to dissension which, to use the words of Pope Paul VI, seems to have gone from self-criticism to self-destruction. Expected was a new enthusiasm, and many wound up discouraged and bored. Expected was a great step forward, and we find ourselves faced with a progressive process of decadence which has developed for the most part precisely under the sign of a calling back to the Council, and has therefore contributed to discrediting it for many. The net result therefore seems negative. I am repeating here what I said ten years after the conclusion of the work: it is incontrovertible that this period has definitely been unfavorable for the Catholic Church.” (Ratzinger)

That last sentence is dead on. It would do all well who want to attack me for posting this thread to read it.

Consider it: “The net result therefore seems negative. I am repeating here what I said ten years after the conclusion of the work: it is incontrovertible that this period has definitely been unfavorable for the Catholic Church.”

The solution?

Follow Benedict and rebuild our Catholic identity.

 

[CWBetts]

There was nothing uncharitable about my post. I tire of the blame game that traditionalists play. There was nothing wrong with Vatican II. After every council there is a period of adjustment, which is what we are encountering now. Like I said the good old days you envision never existed. There have always been problems in the Church. You just cheese to ignore them because you are angry about the Decree on Ecumenism or some such thing

 

[Seamus_L]

The Pre V2 Church definitely wasen’t perfect. It just tends to look that way when you compare it with the post V2 Church.

 

[cathguy]

There was nothing uncharitable about my post. I tire of the blame game that traditionalists play. There was nothing wrong with Vatican II. After every council there is a period of adjustment, which is what we are encountering now. Like I said the good old days you envision never existed. There have always been problems in the Church. You just cheese to ignore them because you are angry about the Decree on Ecumenism or some such thing

I remind again about charity. I caution anyone who posts in this thread that this topic may tempt us all to be uncharitable. Please… please… think and try to avoid this temptation!

I tire of the blame game that traditionalists play.

Here you assume a) that I am a traditionalist, whatever that means, and you state I am playing a game.

Look, I am a Catholic who is loyal to the Holy Father. It is uncharitable to say that I am playing a blame game, and to paint me with a broad brush the way you are.

There was nothing wrong with Vatican II. After every council there is a period of adjustment, which is what we are encountering now.

I quoted the Holy Father at length on this topic. What do you think of his statement?

I agree that there is nothing heretical about Vatican II, it does not contain error.

But do not forget your history friend. In history there have been historically unfortunate/poorly received Councils, and the Church needed to correct for them. Are you saying that every Council is “perfect” of that God inspires Church leaders in their historical actions, like when and if to call Councils? I do not want to make an assumption here.

There have always been problems in the Church. You just cheese to ignore them because you are angry about the Decree on Ecumenism or some such thing

CHARITY!

“e” and “o” are not close on the keyboard. What’s with the cheese comment?

You assume I am angry about the “Decree on Ecumenism or some other such thing.” I am NOT. I know this is the internet. I know there are no standards. But that is not an excuse for uncivil behavior and poor reasoning. Please… please… address what I actually say and not what you have heard others say.

Charity first, especially in a thread like this.

Peace.

 

[rep140]

The Pre V2 Church definitely wasen’t perfect. It just tends to look that way when you compare it with the post V2 Church.

Everyone yearns for the good old days. I was around for them and they weren’t so hot. The movie Doubt was spot on. In my parochial school the kids sat together at Sunday Mass, not with their parents. The kids had to go to the 8:00 Mass. Two kids in my class occasionally went to 10:30 Mass. Maybe there was too much chaos in their house to get to
8:00 every Sunday. When Monday morning came Sister would make these kids stand up and explain why they were not at 8:00 Mass. Then came the verbal abuse and the kids most often wound up in tears. What are the chances that these kids stayed in the Church.

Good bye and good riddance to the pre V2 Church.

 

[Joe_5859]

Whenever an OP ends with the question “What say you?”, I know we’re in for trouble!

I concur with CathGuy that we should make every effort to be charitable in this thread. For some reason, this topic tends to facilitate raised blood pressure. Imagine that!

It is undeniable that there have been bad things that have happened in the Church post-Vatican II. However, (in my estimation) it is equally undeniable that there have been good things that have happened in the Church post-Vatican II as well.

I think there are two key questions to consider:

1. 
   *]Does the negative outweigh the positive or vice versa? (And the corollary: Ought the positive to outweigh the negative in order for the Council to be considered a success?)
   *]Did Vatican II itself cause the bad things?
   
   Remember, correlation does not imply causation. Simply because it can be observed that there was a Council and then bad things happened after it is not conclusive proof that Vatican II caused those bad things. More evidence is required before we can make such an assertion.
   
   There was a lot of stuff going on in the secular culture during the 60’s. There was lots of upheaval that had nothing to do with the Church. A priest I greatly respect and admire once said that the sexual revolution of the 60’s really hurt the Church. But without Vatican II, it would have flattened it. (Of course he was speaking a bit hyperbolically because we all know that the gates of hell will never prevail over the Church.) I’m inclined to agree with such an assessment.
   
   Of course, I should disclose that I may be a bit biased. I would not be where I am today without the renewal movements that sprung up following the Council.
   
   I do think that reform definitely needs to happen. I think looking backward can be helpful, but we must also look forward as well. We must realize that we cannot turn back the clock. We can’t “undo” or “erase” Vatican II from the annals of Church history. The solution is not to simply go back to the way it was. The solution is to embrace the good that has come and drop the bad (and to bring back anything good that may have been prematurely dropped).
   
   Of course, then the question arises as to whether certain things are “good” or “bad” (Mass in the vernacular, I’m looking in your direction ). But that’s a different topic for a different thread, I suppose.

 

[cathguy]

Wow Joe… GREAT post!

Very thoughtful. Thanks!

It is undeniable that there have been bad things that have happened in the Church post-Vatican II. However, (in my estimation) it is equally undeniable that there have been good things that have happened in the Church post-Vatican II as well.

Good point. Well taken.

I think there are two key questions to consider:

1. 
   *]Does the negative outweigh the positive or vice versa? (And the corollary: Ought the positive to outweigh the negative in order for the Council to be considered a success?)
   *]Did Vatican II itself cause the bad things?
   
   Remember, correlation does not imply causation. Simply because it can be observed that there was a Council and then bad things happened after it is not conclusive proof that Vatican II caused those bad things. More evidence is required before we can make such an assertion.

1. 
   Here I think I disagree. You are obviously correct that correlation does not imply causation, and the wikipedia article you link is a useful reminder.
   
   That said… even if there was decline before the Council, it accelerated greatly immediately thereafter. For me, the data indicate that the Council precipitated a decline. I think it is difficult to argue otherwise.
   

   There was a lot of stuff going on in the secular culture during the 60’s. There was lots of upheaval that had nothing to do with the Church. A priest I greatly respect and admire once said that the sexual revolution of the 60’s really hurt the Church. But without Vatican II, it would have flattened it. (Of course he was speaking a bit hyperbolically because we all know that the gates of hell will never prevail over the Church.) I’m inclined to agree with such an assessment.

   I understand the sentiment, but we have NO objective data to back up this assessment at all. It is pure conjecture. There is at least data that shows a precipitous decline after Vatican II.
   

   Of course, I should disclose that I may be a bit biased. I would not be where I am today without the renewal movements that sprung up following the Council.

   Yes… this is an incredibly valid point, and I would not want to discount an argument from personal experience.
   
   My reversion to the Catholic faith had nothing to do with liturgy or tradition. I was brought home by Theology of the Body and the Church’s teachings on sex and sexuality. My journey towards a more traditional praxis occurred only later. Perhaps therefore I too would have remained lost without the renewal movements. It is a valid point. Thanks for making it. And given that this is your story, thank you for responding to my post in a charitable way!
   

   I do think that reform definitely needs to happen. I think looking backward can be helpful, but we must also look forward as well. We must realize that we cannot turn back the clock. We can’t “undo” or “erase” Vatican II from the annals of Church history. The solution is not to simply go back to the way it was. The solution is to embrace the good that has come and drop the bad (and to bring back anything good that may have been prematurely dropped).

   YES! Absolutely true. No good Catholic could argue with this.
   

   Of course, then the question arises as to whether certain things are “good” or “bad” (Mass in the vernacular, I’m looking in your direction ). But that’s a different topic for a different thread, I suppose.

   Yes… lets leave that boxing match to a different thread!
   
   God bless you!

 

[cathguy]

good bye and good riddance to the pre v2 church.

charity!

 

[Gene_Church]

That said… even if there was decline before the Council, it accelerated greatly immediately thereafter. For me, the data indicate that the Council precipitated a decline. I think it is difficult to argue otherwise.

I understand the sentiment, but we have NO objective data to back up this assessment at all. It is pure conjecture. There is at least data that shows a precipitous decline after Vatican II.

I respectfully disagree. The position you take is always the case. There is always “objective data” about what happened after a choice was made, and speculation of what would have happened in history if things were done differently. Would it have been better? Would it have been worse?

The question itself is speculative.

 

[Joe_5859]

Thanks, cathguy, for your kind words.

Here I think I disagree. You are obviously correct that correlation does not imply causation, and the wikipedia article you link is a useful reminder.

That said… even if there was decline before the Council, it accelerated greatly immediately thereafter. For me, the data indicate that the Council precipitated a decline. I think it is difficult to argue otherwise.

I understand the sentiment, but we have NO objective data to back up this assessment at all. It is pure conjecture. There is at least data that shows a precipitous decline after Vatican II.

Fair enough. I can admit that I do not really have any data. I definitely need more education on the matter.

I will make one point, though. I’m not sure exactly what data you are referring to, but I know that the data I commonly see in this regard has to do with a decline in Mass attendance and a decline in vocations. I don’t think this data by itself is proof of an overall decline. Primarily because this data does not factor into account things like the depth of belief.

By way of illustration, say that in 1960 you have 100 million going to Mass every Sunday, but 75 million of those people are just “going through the motions” as cultural Catholics. Only 25 million are really firm in their faith. Then, in 2010, you have only 50 million going to Mass every Sunday, but 30 million are really firm in their faith. The hard data shows a 50% drop in Mass attendance, but doesn’t let us know that there was actually an increase in the level of faith of those that do attend.

Now, I guess here is where you can insert the statistics about how few Catholic believe in the Real Presence to show that my fabricated illustration is off the mark. I don’t have a response to that.

In any event, I guess this is my roundabout way of making the point that there are certain things that are more difficult to quantify as data.

I think we have to look at the data worldwide as well. More often that not, the only statistics I see are only about the U.S.

I feel like my post here is a bit disjointed. Perhaps I need more time to think through these things.

 

[malphono]

That said… even if there was decline before the Council, it accelerated greatly immediately thereafter. For me, the data indicate that the Council precipitated a decline. I think it is difficult to argue otherwise.

Perhaps there is a middle ground here: I don’t think it can be said that the Council “precipitated” (or “caused”) a decline, but it can be argued that it had the effect of being a catalyst for same. Let’s take an analogy: a certain amount of “fresh air” is a good thing, but if it’s freezing outside, the same amount of “fresh air” can help bring on a cold. The freezing air itself doesn’t cause or precipitate the cold, but when the cold germs are already present, the freezing air is a catalyst in that it helps lower the body’s resistance to the cold germs.

 

[cathguy]

I respectfully disagree. The position you take is always the case. There is always “objective data” about what happened after a choice was made, and speculation of what would have happened in history if things were done differently. Would it have been better? Would it have been worse?

The question itself is speculative.

No, I don’t think so. (But thank you for the point! It is well taken)

However, lets draw a parallel. Now you make me type alot!!

What do you make of this from Michael Davies?

"An argument which has been used frequently by proponents of the post-conciliar reforms is post hoc non ergo propter hoc, i.e., because the decline has followed the Council is not necessarily a result of the Council. What these people fail to face up to is the fact that the refomrs allegedly implementing the Council were intended to initiate a renewal, and a renewal must necessarily involve expansion and not decline. What would these people have replied had their reforms resulted, for example, in a massive increase in Mass attendance, and Catholics who did not like the liturgical changes had replied: Post hoc non ergo propter hoc?

There is a respect in which the Church can be compared to any great manufacturing company, and I hope that making this comparison will not appear too irreverent. The object of any manufacturer is to persuade the public to buy its product in preference to that of its competitors. Let us imagine that the chief executives of, say, Ford Motor Company, decided to give the company and its products a totally new image. In order to achieve this they made radical alterations in the appearance of Ford cars, threw out all their tried and tested marketing methods, and promoted their restyled vehicles in a completely new manner. Imagine then, that sales plummeted, and not only did they win practically no new customers, but lost a huge portion of their established clients, in some countries as much as eighty-percent. It would be an understatement to claim that these executives would have lacked credibility had they denied any connection between their new marketing policies and the collapse of their company." (Davies)

How would you reply, if you were a share holder in the company, and the executives refused to change course, and when criticized by you, responded post hoc non ergo propter hoc,?

 

[Joe_5859]

I respectfully disagree. The position you take is always the case. There is always “objective data” about what happened after a choice was made, and speculation of what would have happened in history if things were done differently. Would it have been better? Would it have been worse?

The question itself is speculative.

Thank you, Gene. That’s the point I was getting at, but failed to find the right words.

Even if it is categorically undeniable that there was a steep decline after the Council, we can only speculate as to what would have been the case without the Council. Perhaps the decline would have been even greater.

I’m not sure how one settles this question conclusively.

 

[cathguy]

Perhaps there is a middle ground here: I don’t think it can be said that the Council “precipitated” (or “caused”) a decline, but it can be argued that it had the effect of being a catalyst for same. Let’s take an analogy: a certain amount of “fresh air” is a good thing, but if it’s freezing outside, the same amount of “fresh air” can help bring on a cold. The freezing air itself doesn’t cause or precipitate the cold, but when the cold germs are already present, the freezing air is a catalyst in that it helps lower the body’s resistance to the cold germs.

Good point… maybe you are correct. But it is speculative.

The Council was poorly received. On this we can all agree (so long as we are not dissenters).

The question then is: did the Council renew the Church, or didn’t it?

I don’t think it is easy to argue that it did (see the above quote from Davies)

 

[cathguy]

Thank you, Gene. That’s the point I was getting at, but failed to find the right words.

Even if it is categorically undeniable that there was a steep decline after the Council, we can only speculate as to what would have been the case without the Council. Perhaps the decline would have been even greater.

I’m not sure how one settles this question conclusively.

Gene did articulate his view very well. What do you make of the quote from Davies?

What do you make of this from Michael Davies?

"An argument which has been used frequently by proponents of the post-conciliar reforms is post hoc non ergo propter hoc, i.e., because the decline has followed the Council is not necessarily a result of the Council. What these people fail to face up to is the fact that the refomrs allegedly implementing the Council were intended to initiate a renewal, and a renewal must necessarily involve expansion and not decline. What would these people have replied had their reforms resulted, for example, in a massive increase in Mass attendance, and Catholics who did not like the liturgical changes had replied: Post hoc non ergo propter hoc?

There is a respect in which the Church can be compared to any great manufacturing company, and I hope that making this comparison will not appear too irreverent. The object of any manufacturer is to persuade the public to buy its product in preference to that of its competitors. Let us imagine that the chief executives of, say, Ford Motor Company, decided to give the company and its products a totally new image. In order to achieve this they made radical alterations in the appearance of Ford cars, threw out all their tried and tested marketing methods, and promoted their restyled vehicles in a completely new manner. Imagine then, that sales plummeted, and not only did they win practically no new customers, but lost a huge portion of their established clients, in some countries as much as eighty-percent. It would be an understatement to claim that these executives would have lacked credibility had they denied any connection between their new marketing policies and the collapse of their company."

How would you reply, if you were a share holder in the company, and the executives refused to change course, and when criticized by you, responded post hoc non ergo propter hoc,?

 

[Joe_5859]

No, I don’t think so. (But thank you for the point! It is well taken)

However, lets draw a parallel. Now you make me type alot!!

What do you make of this from Michael Davies?

"An argument which has been used frequently by proponents of the post-conciliar reforms is post hoc non ergo propter hoc, i.e., because the decline has followed the Council is not necessarily a result of the Council. What these people fail to face up to is the fact that the refomrs allegedly implementing the Council were intended to initiate a renewal, and a renewal must necessarily involve expansion and not decline. What would these people have replied had their reforms resulted, for example, in a massive increase in Mass attendance, and Catholics who did not like the liturgical changes had replied: Post hoc non ergo propter hoc?

There is a respect in which the Church can be compared to any great manufacturing company, and I hope that making this comparison will not appear too irreverent. The object of any manufacturer is to persuade the public to buy its product in preference to that of its competitors. Let us imagine that the chief executives of, say, Ford Motor Company, decided to give the company and its products a totally new image. In order to achieve this they made radical alterations in the appearance of Ford cars, threw out all their tried and tested marketing methods, and promoted their restyled vehicles in a completely new manner. Imagine then, that sales plummeted, and not only did they win practically no new customers, but lost a huge portion of their established clients, in some countries as much as eighty-percent. It would be an understatement to claim that these executives would have lacked credibility had they denied any connection between their new marketing policies and the collapse of their company." (Davies)

How would you reply, if you were a share holder in the company, and the executives refused to change course, and when criticized by you, responded post hoc non ergo propter hoc,?

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.