A
Adeodatus
Guest
You already said you were from Steubenville.
- Status
C
CWBetts
Guest
What, pray tell, is that supposed to mean?
C
CWBetts
Guest
None of these thongs are a result of Vatican 2
G
Genesis315
Guest
Unfortunately, yeah–not those exact things, but just as bad. Here is a description of the Church at his time by St. Basil. This was written about 35 years after the First Council of Nicea–should we judge that Council by these fruits?
“The doctrines of true religion are overthrown. The laws of the Church are in confusion. The ambition of men, who have no fear of God, rushes into high posts, and exalted office is now publicly known as the prize of impiety. The result is, that the worse a man blasphemes, the fitter the people think him to be a bishop. Clerical dignity is a thing of the past. There is a complete lack of men shepherding the Lord’s flock with knowledge. Ambitious men are constantly throwing away the provision for the poor on their own enjoyment and the distribution of gifts. There is no precise knowledge of canons. There is complete immunity in sinning; for when men have been placed in office by the favour of men, they are obliged to return the favour by continually showing indulgence to offenders. Just judgment is a thing of the past; and everyone walks according to his heart’s desire. Vice knows no bounds; the people know no restraint. Men in authority are afraid to speak, for those who have reached power by human interest are the slaves of those to whom they owe their advancement. And now the very vindication of orthodoxy is looked upon in some quarters as an opportunity for mutual attack; and men conceal their private ill-will and pretend that their hostility is all for the sake of the truth. Others, afraid of being convicted of disgraceful crimes, madden the people into fratricidal quarrels, that their own doings may be unnoticed in the general distress. Hence the war admits of no truce, for the doers of ill deeds are afraid of a peace, as being likely to lift the veil from their secret infamy. All the while unbelievers laugh; men of weak faith are shaken; faith is uncertain; souls are drenched in ignorance, because adulterators of the word imitate the truth. The mouths of true believers are dumb, while every blasphemous tongue wags free; and holy things are trodden under foot as the churches have become schools of impiety.” (letter 92)
C
cathguy
Guest
“thongs?”
Seriously though…
Here is what you are missing:
"You seem to be saying (please correct me if I am wrong) that Vatican explicitly didn’t call for any of these abuses, therefore, nothing is wrong with the Council documents, and those of you here saying Vatican II is a source of decline are off your rocker, and unorthodox too boot! "
I am incorrect in my assessment of your position?
Now, let me first state where I agree with you:
I AGREE that Vatican II is without error, and didn’t explicitly call for any of these abuses.
Now, at a university like Stubenville you are somewhat insulated from facts on the ground in the “real world” so to speak. The facts are, on the ground in the rest of the country, and cross the entire West, there has been radical and significant decay in the Church post the Council.
That is a fact. It is impossible to deny the evidence plainly in front of our faces.
The question I am asking is this: what, if anything, about this Council failed?
The Council was supposed to be a source of renewal. But, throughout Western Civilization, the Church has seen no renewal .
When I was at Fordham (a while ago in a graduate program) I mentioned the success of Franciscan University to one of my professors. We were arguing about the direction of the post-Conciliar Church (I am obviously orthodox).
His response is very telling. I can only paraphrase it… its been more than a couple of years since that particular graduate program:
"Yes, there is Franciscan, and the handful of orders that are in the habit etc.etc. But look at the data. Franciscan, and the handful of others (Christendom et all.) are arguably successful precisely because they are so few. Every Catholic of a certain bent from around the USA knows that there is a short list of schools that would be acceptable to them.
Could this model work for the entire Church? The optimist in me would love to say “yes,” but the data indicate a much more deep and pervasive decline than these few small institutions would ever be able to reverse."
Given the statistics I cited earlier in this thread, I think he has a point.
The Council has NOT been a source of renewal. We have difficulty arguing otherwise. Pope Paul and Pope Benedict BOTH pointed this out.
The only Pontiff who said otherwise was Pope John Paul II. With all respect due the Vicar of Christ, we can’t say “there is renewal!” when there isn’t.
Also, I said that we had lost the idea of lay apostolate, and you asked me to read Lumen Gentium. I think it ought to obvious that I have read all the Council documents, and I know full well what is in Lumen Gentium.
Again, you are somewhat insulated due to location, but on the ground, throughout the nation, and throughout the West, the idea of lay apostolate has almost been entirely lost.
I think of all the devotional groups, groups of Catholics in the world etc. etc. All have experienced decline at similar rates as those I cited earlier for the religious orders.
How is saying any of this (and asking the questions I am asking) in any way “misrepresenting the teachings of the Church?”
Does the scriptural admonition that we are “to judge a tree by its fruit” not apply? If not, why not?
You made these unsubstantiated statements about my posts, and made pretty rude and bombastic attacks on me saying I was misrepresenting Church teaching, but you seem to be running from dealing with the substance. Perhaps you just haven’t had time?
Peace!
C
CradleCath
Guest
And I tire of Catholics who stick their heads in the sand & say, “All is well with the Church today, councils always have a 40 YEAR adjustment period & any problems we see today were caused by society”.
Figures do not lie. Kenneth C. Jones of St. Louis pulled together a slim volume of statistics he has titled** Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II. I believe that this book was written in 2,003…shortly after the pederasty scandal. The figures are worse now. /B]
Priests. While the number of priests in the United States more than doubled to 58,000, between 1930 and 1965, since then that number has fallen to 45,000. By 2020, there will be only 31,000 priests left, and more than half of these priests will be over 70.
Ordinations. In 1965, 1,575 new priests were ordained in the United States. In 2002, the number was 450. In 1965, only 1 percent of U.S. parishes were without a priest. Today, there are 3,000 priestless parishes, 15 percent of all U.S. parishes.
Seminarians. Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700, a decline of over 90 percent. Two-thirds of the 600 seminaries that were operating in 1965 have now closed.
Sisters. In 1965, there were 180,000 Catholic nuns. By 2002, that had fallen to 75,000 and the average age of a Catholic nun is today 68. In 1965, there were 104,000 teaching nuns. Today, there are 8,200, a decline of 94 percent since the end of Vatican II.
Religious Orders. For religious orders in America, the end is in sight. In 1965, 3,559 young men were studying to become Jesuit priests. In 2000, the figure was 389. With the Christian Brothers, the situation is even more dire. Their number has shrunk by two-thirds, with the number of seminarians falling 99 percent. In 1965, there were 912 seminarians in the Christian Brothers. In 2000, there were only seven. The number of young men studying to become Franciscan and Redemptorist priests fell from 3,379 in 1965 to **84 in 2000. **
Catholic schools. Almost half of all Catholic high schools in the United States have closed since 1965. The student population has fallen from 700,000 to 386,000. Parochial schools suffered an even greater decline. Some 4,000 have disappeared, and the number of pupils attending has fallen below 2 million – from 4.5 million.
Though the number of U.S. Catholics has risen by 20 million since 1965, Jones’ statistics show that the power of Catholic belief and devotion to the Faith are not nearly what they were.
Catholic Marriage. Catholic marriages have fallen in number by one-third since 1965, while the annual number of annulments has soared from 338 in 1968 to 50,000 in 2002.
Attendance at Mass. A 1958 Gallup Poll reported that three in four Catholics attended church on Sundays. A recent study by the University of Notre Dame found that only one in four now attend.
Only 10 percent of lay religious teachers now accept church teaching on contraception. Fifty-three percent believe a Catholic can have an abortion and remain a good Catholic. Sixty-five percent believe that Catholics may divorce and remarry. Seventy-seven percent believe one can be a good Catholic without going to mass on Sundays. By one New York Times poll, 70 percent of all Catholics in the age group 18 to 44 believe the Eucharist is merely a “symbolic reminder” of Jesus.
At the opening of Vatican II, reformers were all the rage. They were going to lead us out of our Catholic ghettos by altering the liturgy, rewriting the Bible and missals, abandoning the old traditions, making us more ecumenical, and engaging the world. And their legacy?
Four decades of devastation wrought upon the church,**
**
Through the papacy of Pius XII, the church resisted the clamor to accommodate itself to the world and remained a moral beacon to mankind. Since Vatican II, the church has sought to meet the world halfway.
Jones’ statistics tell us the price of appeasement.
Now, if you can show us some statistics that show that the Catholic Church has been in a state of growth & increased holiness, I’ll listen. Until then, I’ll contine to believe the truth.**
P
ProVobis
Guest
Either way, it essentially created the Missal of 1965, which never became popular or stable. It eventually led to liturgical chaos. Very few documents were controversial at the time but we’re talking about the fruits. Look at Progressio Populorum. It excited many Catholics because it seemed to be the first step toward permitting artificial birth control. Priests were already preparing everyone to use his/her conscience carefully. Even more so as the Pope was gathering moral theologians who favored ABC to put the final touches on the issue. There is no doubt PP was a mistake, though I’m sure you’ll be able to find some justification for it.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Vatican 2 had many clauses which allowed the bishops to do pretty much what they wanted, and gave them collegiality besides. No wonder the bishops didn’t want to go back to pre-Vatican II.
K
karoleck
Guest
I cannot see where the relationship can be drawn between Vatican II and the Popes that were elected afterwards–as being the fruits of the Council.
I believe that what Jesus said is true–that He will be with HIS CHURCH (The Mystical Body of Christ) until the end of time and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.So I believe that Vatican II was a tangible evidence of Christs’ Love of His Church.Since it was enacted by the Holy Father, in union with all the Cardinals & Bishops throughout the world–The Holy Spirit guided the documents that were promulgated–for the believers to have a “BLUE PRINT” for the folowing of Christ in this age!
It was The Holy Spirit that caused the next popes,Blessed John 23rd.started the processes of reform,Pope Paul 6th.finished the process–his greatest legacy being his greatest glory and his greatest cross–Humane Vitae-a truelly inspired and prophetic voice.The Holy Spirit raised up the 30day Pope JPI and then the Pope John Paul the GREAT.Now the saintly Pope Benedict–the peace maker-especially between the separated churches–including the followers of The Archbishop(break away groups cannot claim the Holy Spirit as it’s (name removed by moderator)iration sadly ,it is due to fallen human nature-called sin!)
I agree in the claim by Archbishop Fulten Sheen that we are in the age of The AntiChrist,so many have fallen away and if you follow this claim to it’s source , the Book of Revelation–satan was unleashed amongst us-was it not Pope John Paul II who referred to the smoke of satan in the church?I do not believe I am being too radical-just look around you,in the world and in the Church! This has more to do with satanic influences that Vatican II, which called for personal holiness.
“Where sin abounds, grace abounds even more!” The fruits are in the measure of individual holiness–we look at appearances, but God looks at ther heart!
I believe that what Jesus said is true–that He will be with HIS CHURCH (The Mystical Body of Christ) until the end of time and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.So I believe that Vatican II was a tangible evidence of Christs’ Love of His Church.Since it was enacted by the Holy Father, in union with all the Cardinals & Bishops throughout the world–The Holy Spirit guided the documents that were promulgated–for the believers to have a “BLUE PRINT” for the folowing of Christ in this age!
It was The Holy Spirit that caused the next popes,Blessed John 23rd.started the processes of reform,Pope Paul 6th.finished the process–his greatest legacy being his greatest glory and his greatest cross–Humane Vitae-a truelly inspired and prophetic voice.The Holy Spirit raised up the 30day Pope JPI and then the Pope John Paul the GREAT.Now the saintly Pope Benedict–the peace maker-especially between the separated churches–including the followers of The Archbishop(break away groups cannot claim the Holy Spirit as it’s (name removed by moderator)iration sadly ,it is due to fallen human nature-called sin!)
I agree in the claim by Archbishop Fulten Sheen that we are in the age of The AntiChrist,so many have fallen away and if you follow this claim to it’s source , the Book of Revelation–satan was unleashed amongst us-was it not Pope John Paul II who referred to the smoke of satan in the church?I do not believe I am being too radical-just look around you,in the world and in the Church! This has more to do with satanic influences that Vatican II, which called for personal holiness.
“Where sin abounds, grace abounds even more!” The fruits are in the measure of individual holiness–we look at appearances, but God looks at ther heart!
P
ProVobis
Guest
And this justifies disobedience to the documents, of which few clauses were as non-ambiguous as this one? And this only a few months after Pope John XXIII issued his Veterum Sapientia, so the element of reinforcement really wasn’t a matter of placating some bishops. Not to mention reinforcing the council of Trent anathemas which prohibited all-vernacular liturgies as the Reformers had done to sell their heresies. Over 1600 years of a sacred language discarded and you’re saying the modernists didn’t control the council? It was only a good thing no new doctrines were promulgated by Vatican II.Yes, of course, but with a huge caveat: that the vernacular be permitted. I don’t think think we need another discussion of modernist tactics, so it will probably suffice to say that the article written to “retain Latin in the liturgy” was … diplomatic, let’s say. After all, there were at least some conservative bishops who had to be placated.
P
ProVobis
Guest
HV was damage control after his dismal Progressio Populorum and assembly of moral theologians who voted in favor of ABC. At that time many, if not most, Catholics had already resigned themselves to use ABC if their consciences allowed for it.
And it was Pope Paul who coined the term “smoke of Satan” not JPII. 1973, I believe, shortly before he exiled the author of the Novus Ordo to Iran. Perhaps there was a connection, perhaps not.
S
Seamus_L
Guest
The claims that the great internal problems within the Church that began arising in the 1960’s were due to radical changes in society are ridiculous. If they were true then the French Revolution, Paris Commune, Terror in Spain, Communist Revolution in Eastern Europe etc would have just about wiped us out. Persecution we can handle and always have, but messages coming from the pulpit in countless churches around the world that were no longer the gospel of Christ is quite another subject.
M
MIKE46
Guest
How exactly is the Church closer to the early Church? Well, I can see the following as being closer.
In being divided against itself. Well that was certainly true in the early Church, of that there is no doubt. It was pretty much hopelessly divided.
In lack of uniformity in practice and liturgy. Well yes, certainly closer in that.
In a lack of understanding on the part of many as to exactly what is meant by the Real Presence. True, we are closer in that way.
In the springing up and acquiesense to heretical notions, ideas and practices. True again. The early Church was notorious in that area.
So overall, I would say that yes, you are correct. We have returned to some of the conditions and practices of early Christianity. Unfortunately those conditions led directly to the to chaos that required the stability brought forth through the consolidation of Rites and beliefs by the Catholic Church.
How sad that some see that as a positive thing.
G
Genesis315
Guest
That’s true–here’s St. Thomas More describing typical preaching in his day right before the entire nation of England fell away (if the whole page doesn’t display, just click it and it will).
books.google.com/books?id=fgwaALgnYVYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+kings+good+servant+but+god’s+first&cd=1#v=onepage&q=monkeying&f=false
Also, St. Bernard showed how Scripture predicted the same thing in his own time:
“It was once predicted of the Church, and now the time of its fulfillment draws near: Behold, in peace is my bitterness most bitter (Is. 38:17). It was bitter at first in the persecution of the martyrs, more bitter in later times in the struggle with the great heresiarchs, but most bitter of all now in the evil lives of her members. She cannot drive them away, and she cannot flee from them, so strongly established are they, and so multiplied are they above measure. The plague of the Church is inward; it is incurable. It is that which makes its bitterness most bitter, even in the midst of peace. But in what peace! Peace it is, and yet it is not peace. There is peace with the world, but not from her own sons. At this time is heard the voice of her complaining: I have nourished and brought forth children, and they have rebelled against me (Is. 1:2). They have rebelled. They have dishonored me with their evil lives, by their many works which walk in darkness.” --St. Bernard, ~1034 AD.
I think one reason we are seeing things improve in the Church is that the world is becomming more hostile to her.
C
CWBetts
Guest
How are we closer? A stronger devotion to the Scriptures.
A higher degree of active ministry participation among the laity.
A recognition of the Body of Christ consists of more than the Latin Rite.
A lifting of the mutual excommunications between east and west.
Return to the idea that the Holy Father is the Servant of the Servants of God.
Here endeth the lesson.
C
CWBetts
Guest
Cite even a single clause that lets “bishops do what they want.” Enough with the broad generalizations with nothing to back them up.
C
CWBetts
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
I was there. The radicals inside and outside the Church mounted a coordinated attack.
First, there was “The devil made me do it.” Now, “Vatican II made me do it?”
Does anyone here honestly believe that people of the time period went crazy after Vatican II and decided to add more sin to their lives? I didn’t. My classmates in Catholic school didn’t.
What? Just stop going to Church because today it’s just too broken? Stop being Catholic because the priest is facing the wrong way? Stop praying to God?
I didn’t stop. However, when the attacks on the family began, Pope Paul VI tried to stop it in 1968 with Humanae Vitae. That was the origin of the breaking point. And what do we have today? Porn everywhere. Was that the fault of Catholics? Legal abortion. Easy divorce. Vatican II did all that? No. Organized crime along with lawyers and judges. Partial nudity and profanity on TV. A Catholic idea?
Wake up, my fellow Catholics.
Peace,
Ed
C
CWBetts
Guest
Every traditionalist on this thread is missing the boat completely. Renewal has nothing to do with numbers, but the activity of the Holy Spirit in the faithful remnant. By blasting an ecumenical council, stopping just short of calling it heretical, removes you from that faithful remnant. Perhaps it is time to stop your pessimistic appraisal of the situation. Perhaps it is time to accept that God knows what He is doing. We should not be depressed at small numbers. How often in the Old Testament did Israel overcome its enemies through overwhelming force? Try never. The world is overcome by faith. Instead of blaming Vatican 2, you need to understand that God is simply cleaning house.
G
Genesis315
Guest
I tend to believe it is very possible we are in the period when the devil is loosed for a time–John Paul II said so and certain visionaries have placed that moment beginning in the mid-20th century (ie Leo XIII, Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich) and the warnings at Fatima and Akita warn of similar things.
When Satan was chained, the faith “conquered” the great pagan empire which wasn’t mindful of God. Now, we are falling back into it and the people are distracted with “bread and circuses” I don’t see how the decrees of the Council in and of themselves could have accounted for the radical explosion (or at least revealing) of craziness that happened directly after. I can see how the unleashing of diabolical influence could. Archbishop Fulton Sheen was of the opinion that Vatican II was a great outpouring of the Holy Spirit, but it was met with outpouring of demonic activity–he showed similar examples of this phenomenon in history, but to me it seems possible we are seeing the final unleashing rather than the “usual.”
“Penance, penance, penance!”
When Satan was chained, the faith “conquered” the great pagan empire which wasn’t mindful of God. Now, we are falling back into it and the people are distracted with “bread and circuses” I don’t see how the decrees of the Council in and of themselves could have accounted for the radical explosion (or at least revealing) of craziness that happened directly after. I can see how the unleashing of diabolical influence could. Archbishop Fulton Sheen was of the opinion that Vatican II was a great outpouring of the Holy Spirit, but it was met with outpouring of demonic activity–he showed similar examples of this phenomenon in history, but to me it seems possible we are seeing the final unleashing rather than the “usual.”
“Penance, penance, penance!”
- Status