Can we judge Vatican II by its fruit?

[ncjohn]

I hope you prayerfully consider the arguments and the sources I listed in my prior post and not glibly just reject them out of prejudice or misplaced optimism.

No I have no prejudice in the matter. I grew up in the pre-Vatican II Church and saw first hand its many, many problems. I am also not naive and don’t claim that there are not problems in the Church today. The Church has always had its problems whether from within or without, and has always had its doomsayers to think that it was falling to pieces.

The point is that this supposed “decline” is not universal within the Church. If it was directly attributable to the council it would be.The “fact” is that Church attendance and such things in “the West” can be far more accurately ascribed to the prosperity boom and people’s general loss of belief that they needed God, along with the wholesale rejection of any and all authority that came from the unrest of the 60’s, than anything the council produced.

Quoting statistics is easy. Proving causality is not nearly as easy. The evidence is clearly against the council being the prime cause though it may be a contributing cause at some level. And by the way, it took many, many years to implement Trent so if you truly think that things just fell into place after that one, or after Vatican I, you may want to do a little further study.

As to Michael Davies, I don’t disagree with the Pope. Nor does anything in the quote you gave disagree with my opinion. Michael Davies was a devoted man but a mixed bag like all of us with some opinions that just don’t wash with a great many of us even while having others I fully support.

I would throw out one more cause that I personally suspect is far more significant in people’s disaffection with the Church than people might think, especially in “the West”: the de facto schism that has occured that is pitting Catholics against each other and causing people to just walk away in disgust in much the same manner that we are seeing people voting out imcumbents in congress because they’re tired of watching the infighting while the important business is getting neglected. People are sick and tired of watching the fighting rather than seeing Catholics working together to proclaim the Kingdom. It’s just the Pharisees and the Sadduces all over again and we all lose because the devil has managed to divide us against ourselves.

Peace,

 

[cathguy]

When one enters the discussion positing such opinions as fact and putting the “great” Mr. Davies on such a pedestal, I fear you are doomed to disappointment if you think that a large percentage of the Catholic population does not disagree with your basic premise. While he most assuredly makes many valid points he is so far off the mark on many things that it is hard to get any kind of consistent undistorted view and his personal agenda is far too visible throughout.

“Decline” in the OP is not even defined though I suspect we’re going to get into the same old tired statistics about church attendance as if Vatican II can be shown as the cause to that effect even though there are large areas of the Catholic world where attendance and vocations are actually exploding. I usually try to read through a thread before responding but the basic premise here the premise seems to be “I think things are terrible. Tell me how you agree with me.” Not meaning to be uncharitable in any way; just pointing out the perception from having encountered way more of these threads than I wish to remember that are mostly set up to bait people into an argument.

As to the idea that the Church is in the worst shape it has ever been, I would heartily disagree with you. The entire time of the middle ages saw a Church full of corruption and ruling where it did by brute force in many cases.

Is everything that came out of the council perfect? Of course not but we have yet to have a council where everything came out perfect. All councils produce things that take time to swing back and forth before relative balance is achieved. Thankfully we continue to have Popes who try to pull out the weeds without tossing the fruit until the proper implementation is in place.

Peace,

The other point I would make is on the rock of solid demography.

It isn’t just the Church in the West that is dying. It is the West itself.

The situation with birthrates throughout the west is desire. The population is greying.

Immigration is the natural outgrowth of this, and demand for labor must be meet as a greying and increasingly entitled native population refuses to do certain jobs. In Europe, the immigration is from Muslim nations.

In this century, Italy will become a Muslim nation. So will France.

Unfortunately, some people will react with xenophobia to this threat, instead of giving an authentic Christian response.

What has caused this situation?

The answer is that the Church failed stay Catholic. The laity abandoned the Church, ignored Humanae Vitae, and stopped proclaiming the Gospel to the nations.

When the Roman empire lost its spiritual underpinnings it ceased to be. It fell.

When Europe loses Catholicism, the same thing may well occur.

The Council did not give us renewal. There is death and decay every where you look in Christendom. This data is not just about the orders, and about the Church attendance. Its population itself! Its our civilization itself!

We must wake up. We must answer the threat with love and an appropriately peaceful Christian response.

We must start living the Churches teachings on marriage and the family. We must understand that the Catholic Church is the true Church founded by Christ. We must reclaim those things that make us distinctively Catholic.

Peace.

 

[cathguy]

I thank you for this post! It is very honest and forthright. I will address it as best I can. I do not mean to cause you any discomfort.

No I have no prejudice in the matter. I grew up in the pre-Vatican II Church and saw first hand its many, many problems. I am also not naive and don’t claim that there are not problems in the Church today. The Church has always had its problems whether from within or without, and has always had its doomsayers to think that it was falling to pieces.

Well… it is arguable that we are facing a crisis the size of which we haven’t faced since the Arian heresy. We pulled out of that. We will survive this. But in the West? Not so sure.

The point is that this supposed “decline” is not universal within the Church. If it was directly attributable to the council it would be.The “fact” is that Church attendance and such things in “the West” can be far more accurately ascribed to the prosperity boom and people’s general loss of belief that they needed God, along with the wholesale rejection of any and all authority that came from the unrest of the 60’s, than anything the council produced.

Why, when these heresies and threats were clear in the 60s, did the Church convene a ecumenical council and not address them? Every council heretofore had been called to address a heresy and refute it. Not Vatican II.

It was the 60s! No mention of the sexual revolution. No mention of Atheistic Communism (Poland was under the Soviet Unions heel!) no mention of any number of the major heresies of the time. Can’t good Catholics be forgiven for being confused?

Quoting statistics is easy. Proving causality is not nearly as easy. The evidence is clearly against the council being the prime cause though it may be a contributing cause at some level. And by the way, it took many, many years to implement Trent so if you truly think that things just fell into place after that one, or after Vatican I, you may want to do a little further study.

Oh… I have upset you…

Look, I know full well that it took a long time to implement each and every council. But I say again, this council attacked no heresy. It was supposed to renew the Church. It didn’t.

As to Michael Davies, I don’t disagree with the Pope. Nor does anything in the quote you gave disagree with my opinion. Michael Davies was a devoted man but a mixed bag like all of us with some opinions that just don’t wash with a great many of us even while having others I fully support.

Thats okay! You are correct. He is just a scholar and you are free to accept and/or reject his arguments. I think they are pretty strong though.

I would throw out one more cause that I personally suspect is far more significant in people’s disaffection with the Church than people might think, especially in “the West”: the de facto schism that has occured that is pitting Catholics against each other and causing people to just walk away in disgust in much the same manner that we are seeing people voting out imcumbents in congress because they’re tired of watching the infighting while the important business is getting neglected.

There is absolutely no evidence of this.

People walk away from Catholicism because it is hard. Ask them. (Surveys have been done).

The majority don’t frequent websites like this, or read about the faith, or have heard about Michael Davies, or even know about the Motu Proprio, or understand anything at all.

They walk away because a) they don’t understand the faith and what it teaches, and b) the Catholic faith is hard.

People are sick and tired of watching the fighting rather than seeing Catholics working together to proclaim the Kingdom. It’s just the Pharisees and the Sadduces all over again and we all lose because the devil has managed to divide us against ourselves.

Peace,

This sounds like an issue you are having. There is no data to support this at all.

I cannot now, nor can I ever, agree that the Devil is behind people rediscovering the fullness of Catholic tradition. I cannot understand why some find it threatening!

In closing I say I wish you well. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. I appreciate it.

 

[CWBetts]

Cathguy, you are mistaken. The Church did not “fail to remain Catholic” it became MORE Catholic. Vatican II did not take the Church ahead, but rather, took the Church closer to the Early Church. Go ahead and mourn the death of morality based on legalism, I choose to celebrate morality based on growth in the virtues. Truth be told some orders are actually growing, so you can cease and desist claiming that the Church is practically dead. I am leaving this thread because I have no stomach for those who want to use modern technology as a platform for pushing an agenda that is in essence attacking the Church.

 

[ProVobis]

Vatican II did not take the Church ahead, but rather, took the Church closer to the Early Church.

Yes, and the progressives were the ones who used this excuse. And it makes no sense. Why go back to the period when the sun revolved about the earth? And why throw out all the art and music and prayers that have been inspired by the Mass since the Early Church? This is what bringing the Church back to the Early Church implies and I frankly can’t see much pastoral value in that.

 

[edwest2]

Additional information that I hope people find useful:

vatican2voice.org/2need/need.htm

God bless,
Ed

 

[RyanML]

Truth be told some orders are actually growing, so you can cease and desist claiming that the Church is practically dead.

Yes, but as far as I can tell, the Religious Orders that are experiencing the greatest growth and renewal are the ones who are returning to more “traditional” forms of life and practice.

 

[cathguy]

Cathguy, you are mistaken. The Church did not “fail to remain Catholic” it became MORE Catholic. Vatican II did not take the Church ahead, but rather, took the Church closer to the Early Church. Go ahead and mourn the death of morality based on legalism, I choose to celebrate morality based on growth in the virtues. Truth be told some orders are actually growing, so you can cease and desist claiming that the Church is practically dead. I am leaving this thread because I have no stomach for those who want to use modern technology as a platform for pushing an agenda that is in essence attacking the Church.

Peace!

I did not mean to say that the Church failed to remain Catholic! Yikes!

I went back and found it, and it is clear from the context I did not mean it the way you are spinning it. Beware the strawman!

The Church is the Church.

Did I say that? Wow. If I did (I can’t imagine I did) what I meant was: The Church failed to keep those things that make Her distinctively Catholic. We lost chunks of our identity it was never the intention of the Council fathers to lose!

I am so sorry you misread me

Your comment on morality based on legalism is strange. Natural moral law is unchanging, as is the morality teaching of the Church. You argue that it has changed? I hope not. Please understand, when you say such things, you convince many good Catholics that the Church has ceased to be what She is! This stuff has caused so much damage! (if you are saying what I think you are saying. I admit it is possible I am misreading you!)(

If I am not misreading you, I must say this: you are wrong. I wish I could convince you without upsetting you. But morality and God’s law do not change! And the Church did not get it wrong prior to Vatican II! How can you think this?

The orders that are growing… you can count them on one hand. The data… the data… why are we insisting on ignoring the data? All of these orders are habited, all of them practice the faith within a hermeneutic of continuity. I cannot think of a single modernist order that is thriving.

Attacking the Church?

How?

Your post is not very thoughtful. I conclude therefore that you are upset, and I am sorry I offended you.

Please also know that you are on the traditional Catholic forum. This is where “those people” hang out.

But I am truly sorry I offended you. I hope when you are less upset you can consider the arguments on their merits, and not just post these sorts of missives.

Peace to you! And thank you for your contribution. I really do appreciate. it.

 

[CWBetts]

Yes, and the progressives were the ones who used this excuse. And it makes no sense. Why go back to the period when the sun revolved about the earth? And why throw out all the art and music and prayers that have been inspired by the Mass since the Early Church? This is what bringing the Church back to the Early Church implies and I frankly can’t see much pastoral value in that.

This is nothing but air. The value in going back involves a better understanding of morality (the post reformation view of morality is nothing short of inane). Going back involves the understanding that the Church is not just the ordained the clergy, but the laity as well. Perhaps you prefer the kind of Catholicism that includes just showing up for Mass. That is a shallow way to practice your faith. It isn’t practicing your faith at all.

 

[cathguy]

Yes, but as far as I can tell, the Religious Orders that are experiencing the greatest growth and renewal are the ones who are returning to more “traditional” forms of life and practice.

This is self evident!

 

[cathguy]

This is nothing but air. The value in going back involves a better understanding of morality (the post reformation view of morality is nothing short of inane). Going back involves the understanding that the Church is not just the ordained the clergy, but the laity as well. Perhaps you prefer the kind of Catholicism that includes just showing up for Mass. That is a shallow way to practice your faith. It isn’t practicing your faith at all.

Yes yes!! You are correct that the Church is not just the ordained! Of course!

And that is what we lost with the Council!

When was the last time you heard the word “apostolate?” We have lay “ministers” hanging around the sanctuary, but what do they TRULY do to further Christ’s kingdom in the world?

And you are being far less than charitable in the way you are addressing people, calling them shallow etc.

Please… please…

Charity.

I have tried very hard to make arguments and be gentle. Making arguments means refraining from ad hominem attacks. Why are you doing this?

 

[Malleus_01]

<<<<< Cathguy, you are mistaken. The Church did not “fail to remain Catholic” it became MORE Catholic. Vatican II did not take the Church ahead, but rather, took the Church closer to the Early Church. >>>>>>

Mal: That is a complete fabricatiion. Vatican II Did no such thing. You are welcome to give me ONE Example of the Early Church co worshipping with Non Catholics. You are welcome to give me One Example of any Theologian making a claim that all False Religions “subsist” within the Church to one degree or another. As for Worship - please provide a single Mass of any variety that contain the Words of Consecration identical to the Novus Ordo Missae. I have been to the Catacombs. There is no Lutheran Table down there. And as for the single quote regarding communion in the hand - from St Cyril cited ad nauseum and which is of questionable origin I can supply 25 Quotes from Contemporary Saints condemning the Practise. What Vatican II did was attempt to “Protestantize” Catholicism. And that is diametrically opposed to Early Catholicism. Jesus came to FORM 1 Church - with 7 Sacraments not to pass out Bibles - Menoras - or islamic prayer mats. Look at the NAB Scriptures themselves - they admit Protestant Theologians helped TRANSLATE Catholic Scriptures ! When in the Early Church did that ever happen? Back up your claims. This is simply not true.

<<<< Go ahead and mourn the death of morality based on legalism, I choose to celebrate morality based on growth in the virtues. >>>>>>

Mal: Oh really. What is the size of the Catholic Family in 1960 as opposed to 2009? Do you know? How many Catholic Annulments are granted annually 1960 as opposed to 2009? Do you know? Statistics clearly show that also simply isnt true. Not to mention Abortion / Artificial Birth Control / Acceptance of homosexuality / Immoral Fashions (Including in Churrch) / Catholic attitudes about divorce and remarriage / mixed marriages between Catholics and non Catholics. You say this has been a renaissance of Virtue? I certainly hope you arent serious.

<<<< Truth be told some orders are actually growing, so you can cease and desist claiming that the Church is practically dead.>>>>>>

Mal: Depends on who you call a Catholic and who is actually a practising believing Catholic.

<<< I am leaving this thread because I have no stomach for those who want to use modern technology as a platform for pushing an agenda that is in essence attacking the Church. >>>>

Mal: Or you are leaving this thread because you cannot defend the points you alledge. We have eyes. We can read. We can see. And I know of Church after Church closing and consolidating in the Midwest because I read about them in the Newspaper on a daily basis. There at 14 Churches that have been consolidated in Iowa and Nebraska in the last 3 years alone. Tell me why that is if what you say is true. You have just as much of an agenda as any Traditional Catholic. And if you didnt , in Charity you would share FACTS for the benefit of your neighbor as we do. But instead of Facts - you simply present your opinion solely and then run away before you have to substantiate any of the things you alledge. So you can think tou have claimed the moral high ground by your departure - but the fact of your departure proves otherwise doesnt it.

pax

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Yes, but as far as I can tell, the Religious Orders that are experiencing the greatest growth and renewal are the ones who are returning to more “traditional” forms of life and practice.

This is self evident!

Anecdotal information or actual hard facts and statistics showing data for all religious orders/communities through out the world?

 

[ncjohn]

Oh… I have upset you…

The fact that we disagree in our conclusions doesn’t upset me. And I’m certainly not sure what in the quote you’re addressing would give you a thought that I might be upset.

Look, I know full well that it took a long time to implement each and every council. But I say again, this council attacked no heresy. It was supposed to renew the Church. It didn’t.

In your opinion.

There were many rotten fruits before the council. There are some things after the council that need to be corrected. There are other things that just need to actually be implemented. There are many wonderful fruits involving increased involvement of the laity at all levels (yes, sometimes TOO much), including great growth in 3rd order professions. As is said so often, the Church doesn’t think in years; it thinks in centuries.

The majority don’t frequent websites like this, or read about the faith, or have heard about Michael Davies, or even know about the Motu Proprio, or understand anything at all.

I think you underestimate people. That might have been true before SP but most people are now very aware of the fighting because almost every parish is being exposed to it in some manner as people fight to get the EF available. They may not know all the details behind it or know the SSPX from the SSPV but they know there’s a battle going on.

This sounds like an issue you are having. There is no data to support this at all.

It’s no issue for me. I have been a consistent supporter of seeing things freed up but I have also seen some very vitriolic rhetoric at the parish and diocesan level including letters to the editor and the like. There may not be “data” yet but it is clearly and obviously present, much more than it was when people who wanted the EF just quietly left and went to the SSPX, though the battles in that regard have been open and known in parts of Europe, and even in the States in some places, for some time.

I cannot now, nor can I ever, agree that the Devil is behind people rediscovering the fullness of Catholic tradition. I cannot understand why some find it threatening!
.

I certainly did not say or imply that the devil is behind people “rediscovering” tradition, nor do I find it threatening as I grew up with it and still observe many of those traditions myself.

The devil is most assuredly behind the lack of Catholic charity that is present in the infighting however. And I don’t credit the “blame” to either side exclusively. There is plenty of that to go around. The question is how we get past it and remember the gospel calling we all have.

 

[cathguy]

Anecdotal information or actual hard facts and statistics showing data for all religious orders/communities through out the world?

Actually studies HAVE been done on this.

The orders that are growing a TINY minority, but those that are growing are the ones that are orthodox (small o).

The Nashville Dominicans are one example.

In the words of the nun for the USCCB they are too small to constitute a “trend” but it is those orders who lean to a more traditional praxis that are growing.

I don’t want to look up the study now, but it was very well publicized.

 

[cathguy]

This is a very thoughtful post.

Sorry I misread you.

The devil is most assuredly behind the lack of Catholic charity that is present in the infighting however. And I don’t credit the “blame” to either side exclusively. There is plenty of that to go around. The question is how we get past it and remember the gospel calling we all have.

I hope I have not shown a lack of charity. If I have I apologize. I have tried VERY hard in this discussion to be charitable.

But…

I admire those Englishman during the English Reformation who died for the old Mass. Their Bishops told them the altars had to be turned around, the Mass had to be in English, they had to receive on the hand, etc.etc. etc.

And they said “NO.”

Not so gently and civil like…

And they were cut to pieces.

And a part of me says “look, you face no martyrdom. Stand up!”

I think those men were right, except I would never endorse any sort of violence today. But during the English reformation times were different.

Peace!

 

[Malleus_01]

Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers cited an alarming statistic taken from a poll taken anonymously. Only 30 % of the Catholics polled said they believed in the REAL PRESENCE. With the Rise of “Cafeteria Catholicism” how many Catholics have actually left the Church through denial of some of the Church Dogmas. Remember - DOGMA isnt an option. Any Catholic who refuses to believe in a single Dogma has placed themselves outside of the Faith. It is as simple as that. So when the modernists point to this “large renewal” and “growth in the Church” and like to atttempt to paint a rosy picture - the truth is that Vocations are down drastically. There is a massive Priest Shortange. Nuns are aging and many will soon retire. And we can pooh pooh these very real problems and attempt to shove them under the rug and put on the happy face - but the fact that so many parishes have to rely on eucharistic ministers or the movement for Married Clergy anmd or Women Ordination all point to the fact that the Numbers of True Catholics holding true Catholic belief isnt what the Novus ordo claim it to be.

 

[cathguy]

Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers cited an alarming statistic taken from a poll taken anonymously. Only 30 % of the Catholics polled said they believed in the REAL PRESENCE. With the Rise of “Cafeteria Catholicism” how many Catholics have actually left the Church through denial of some of the Church Dogmas. Remember - DOGMA isnt an option. Any Catholic who refuses to believe in a single Dogma has placed themselves outside of the Faith. It is as simple as that. So when the modernists point to this “large renewal” and “growth in the Church” and like to atttempt to paint a rosy picture - the truth is that Vocations are down drastically. There is a massive Priest Shortange. Nuns are aging and many will soon retire. And we can pooh pooh these very real problems and attempt to shove them under the rug and put on the happy face - but the fact that so many parishes have to rely on eucharistic ministers or the movement for Married Clergy anmd or Women Ordination all point to the fact that the Numbers of True Catholics holding true Catholic belief isnt what the Novus ordo claim it to be.

Yes… but…

I hate being a wet rag… I really do…

But there is no such things as Novus Ordo Catholics.

There are liberals in the Church. That goes without saying.

But we are called to be one Church.

It is very threatening to some to say that means we must be one united by a Catholic liturgy in continuity with the past.

You know, the thing is, the vast majority of Catholics wouldn’t know the difference between the new Mass at the EF if the OF was celebrated in a manner consistent with what the Council called for.

Oh well…

My fellow posters I thank you all for contributing to this thread I started. I have learned a lot from it. It is time for me to step away.

Please continue to be charitable. This would be a good thread to keep around if possible.

If I gave offense, I apologize, and if I said anything illuminating it is because someone else said it before me!

Thanks for participating!

Peace!

 

[Malleus_01]

<<< Yes… but…

I hate being a wet rag… I really do…

But there is no such things as Novus Ordo Catholics.

There are liberals in the Church. That goes without saying. >>>>>

Mal: Sorry - But if someone doesnt believe in a Dogma - any Dogma - then they are no longer Catholic. That is a Theological Question that is catechetical.

<<<< But we are called to be one Church. >>>>

Mal : Agreed. And we are One Church only if we hold to the infallibly defined Dogmas of the Church. The Church is the Church Triumphant - the Church Suffering as well as the Church Militant. We are not called to be One Church solely in the Church Militant as many today falsely think. After Vatican II - many people who consider themselves Catholic no longer hold the same belief in Dogma that were held on Earth and now in Heaven by the Saints and doctors of the Church. So there isnt this Unity you claim exists. Indeed we are called to Unity - Unity with the Entire Church not with novelty in our age alone.

<<<< It is very threatening to some to say that means we must be one united by a Catholic liturgy in continuity with the past.>>>>

Mal: Oh really - then why in Vatican I Session 4 : 18 July 1870 did the Church teach thus:

For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren

Did the Holy Ghost not guide this council?

<<< You know, the thing is, the vast majority of Catholics wouldn’t know the difference between the new Mass at the EF if the OF was celebrated in a manner consistent with what the Council called for. >>>>>

Mal: That is a strawman argument. As St Athansius once said - *“Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.” The same St Athanasius who stood up to Arius and whose statue adornes one of the legs of the Chair of st Peter in the Apse of the Vatican. His Creed says that we must keep the Faith "Whole and undefiled " Why is it that we hardly see the Athanasian Creed anymore? Is that threatening as well?

<<< Oh well…

My fellow posters I thank you all for contributing to this thread I started. I have learned a lot from it. It is time for me to step away.

Please continue to be charitable. This would be a good thread to keep around if possible.

If I gave offense, I apologize, and if I said anything illuminating it is because someone else said it before me!

Thanks for participating!

Peace!

Mal: Expressing ones opinion should always be charitable - thats the Catholic way. GOD’s Truth stands on its own merit regardless of the messenger. Its seeds are planted even if they are disagreeable to some when first heard But those seeds may fall on hard ground or be choked by weeds or be trampled underfoot by many who get upset - but the same seed that finds good ground yields fruit one hundred fold , doesnt it?

Pax

 

[CWBetts]

Yes yes!! You are correct that the Church is not just the ordained! Of course!

And that is what we lost with the Council!

When was the last time you heard the word “apostolate?” We have lay “ministers” hanging around the sanctuary, but what do they TRULY do to further Christ’s kingdom in the world?

And you are being far less than charitable in the way you are addressing people, calling them shallow etc.

Please… please…

Charity.

I have tried very hard to make arguments and be gentle. Making arguments means refraining from ad hominem attacks. Why are you doing this?

We can now dismiss everything you have said as mere polemics. It was reaffirmed with the council. Read Lumen Gentium.