Can we judge Vatican II by its fruit?

[Genesis315]

you need to understand that God is simply cleaning house.

That definitely could be true. During the falling away near the Great Western Schism, the Father “told” St. Catherine and also St. Bridget that He was pruning away dead branches.

 

[fish90]

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.

I have two comments.

1.) A stronger devotion to the scriptures can be problematic. A Catholic who finds Scripture to be more important than the infallible interpreter becomes a borderline follower of Sola Scriptura in my own opinion.

2.) Active participation among the laity can be problematic as well. Liturgical abuses such as children standing behind the altar or EMHC’s blessing communicants are not to be accepted. If my memory serves me correctly, the Vatican has condemned the clericalization of the laity and the latification of the clergy (Please excuse my spelling). What defines these problems and the course to end them are what I will leave for the pastors to decide. Further, Sacrosanctum Concillium never wanted the “extraordinary participation” that happens today. This citation sheds some light.
It is worth noting here that the positive expressions of participation which we find elsewhere in Sacrosanctum Concilium are contrasted with the phrase “as though they were outsiders or silent onlookers.” who would not be participating either interiorly nor exteriorly, which means that a lack of engagement by the worshipper in the liturgy is the opposite of “active participation.”* What the Council sought was to restore to the baptized their rightful role in the liturgical assembly, whether through song or silence; kneeling or standing; processing or sitting; reading or responding.** As a result, there is no one activity which in itself can be defined as “active participation.” Instead, such participation is a constellation of skilled worship acts through which every believer must develop a full engagement with the liturgical action.*
usccb.org/liturgy/girm/theo.shtml

Best,
fish90

 

[manualman]

I vote

C: Far too early to tell.

What most folks fail to realize is that nearly every ecumenical council took decades, even centuries to have the full effects intended.

So this poll is premature. Come back in another 100 years and ask it.
In the meantime, do your best to separate the REAL Vatican II from the imposter ‘spirit’ pushed by many dissenters and trust in God to sort things out in the end.

 

[Adeodatus]

None of these thongs are a result of Vatican 2

I guess it was all just an astonishing coincidence.

 

[Adeodatus]

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.

Cleaning house? I see. So you propose that Vatican II was an act of Divine Providence whereby millions are driven away from the Church, Catholics no longer genuflect at the Creed or the Last Gospel (which was itself canned), worship is no longer done facing God but is instead facing the audience (on a stage with polyester outfits and Protestant hippie music), and reverence and piety are ridiculed and replaced with Marxist humanism? Where the True Presence of our God in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is not reverenced, but rather the Body of God is passed out like poker chips by women in pantsuits?

That is what you call Providence? That is your ‘renewal’? The transformation of the Catholic Church into lukewarm Lutheranism by a suspected Freemason? What… was the Lord tired of being worshipped or something? I think we can rightfully attribute to Providence the fact that Vatican II did not utterly implode the entire Church.

Catholics voting for Obama, promoting abortion, disrespecting the True Presence and clapping along to quasi-heretical Protestant folk music. That’s what I see to be the fruits of Vatican II.

Thankfully, God has blessed us with an especially good pope who I believe is trying to set things right.

 

[PJM]

To claim that Vatican II is the base issue for the many problems in the church today, is to either not know or understand what Vatican II actually teaches.

Nevetheless, it was the misguided “Spirit of Vtican II” that was the vechical that led to ***Environement and Art In Ctholic Worship,"/*I] the unapproved Bishops Committee document used as a gun at the head of pastors and laity to remove Communion rails, tabernacles, altars and alter the very focus of our once God Centred Worship, to “Gathering Spaces” [Bishops terms for what used to be [and were once called] churches].

These actions then [almost naturally] led to ordinary ministers of the Eucharist [every day, nearly every Mass, everywhere, as Pope John Paul II points out, is certainly NOT “extrodinary.”] ; lay lectors, choirs moved to the front to be on display, not merely lead the singing, and a DRAMATIC loss of piety and focus on God centered Worship.

Community focus has replaced the focus of God centered Sacrifical Worship. Much like it has done for Protestants. One must ask if this was by [good?] intent?

To deny these facts play the most signifiant role in the decline of Catholic Mass attendance, [PEW Report 1970 to 2008] of about 75% droping to below 25%, and loss of understanding and acceptance of Christ Real Presence, which led to an even further decline in the Sacramental need and use of Confession, is not only foolish, it is very dangerous to the remaining Catholic souls.

It has also been a key issue in the lack of vocations. Not the only issue, but a major factor.

No, Vatican II is NOT to blame, it is however the “bus” that OH SO MANY jumped on to effect the changs in evidence today. Using the criteria Christ Himself advises, the fruits are ROTTEN and getting worse.**

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

So you propose that Vatican II was an act of Divine Providence whereby millions are driven away from the Church

Classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc logically fallacy.

While statistics may show that there has been a decline in the Church (which started prior to the Vatican II council) they do not prove that the Vatican II council is the cause.

This is because statistics can not prove anything.

There was also a big change in western society during the 1960’s and 1970’s. I think those influences are more a cause of the decline.

 

[PJM]

=ByzCath;6330046]Classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc logically fallacy.

While statistics may show that there has been a decline in the Church (which started prior to the Vatican II council) they do not prove that the Vatican II council is the cause.

This is because statistics can not prove anything.

There was also a big change in western society during the 1960’s and 1970’s. I think those influences are more a cause of the decline.

And might the VERY Public and VERY catholic denial of Humanae Vitae which has led to ever increasing power [assumed and usurped] for legal disent with our Pope, our Magisterium and a very long history of Tradition not been the fuel of this firestorm?

Through out history, national morality has followed closely CC Teaching. So we should be surprised at what this public desent was wrought?

ONLY to blame; certainly not, but without blame; NO!

 

[Sword_Brethren]

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.

What horrors, discipline and lessons in humility. Now there are no nuns to teach our children because of the great number of women who have left their orders and the lack of women entering religious life.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

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. Lg

Not so according to Fr. John Laux M.A. in his book, Church History, " The best comment on the work accomplished by the Council of Trent is contained in the Acts of the Vatican Council (1869): “The salutary providence of Christ has been most clearly manifested in the abundant fruits which have accrued to the Christian world from the Ecumemical Councils, and especially from that of Trent, though it was held in evil times…”
Page 479

 

[pnewton]

I could not answer either, both because of my lack of omniscience and the complexity of the situation. I do find it interesting that this poll was posted in this particular subforum as opposed to one more representative of all. A skewed answer is inevitable. Still, I will decline.

 

[Lormar]

PNewton

I think it was posted here to stir up trouble.

 

[edwest2]

Here is a letter from a former priest who signed a protest letter against Humanae Vitae who has since regretted that decision:

wdtprs.com/blog/2008/08/hv-ex-priest-protester-from-1968-comes-around/

Peace,
Ed

 

[Genesis315]

Not so according to Fr. John Laux M.A. in his book, Church History, " The best comment on the work accomplished by the Council of Trent is contained in the Acts of the Vatican Council (1869): “The salutary providence of Christ has been most clearly manifested in the abundant fruits which have accrued to the Christian world from the Ecumemical Councils, and especially from that of Trent, though it was held in evil times…”
Page 479

This quote speaks of fruits after centuries of evaluation. The testimonies of the saints who lived the direct aftermath usually have a different view. I already posted earlier words from St. Basil. For another example, St. Gregory Nazienzen, lamented:

“To tell the truth, I am convinced that every assembly of bishops is to be avoided, for I have never experienced a happy ending to any council; not even the abolition of abuses…”

St. Isadore’s History of the Goths, Vandals, and Suebis is also a good place to see how the Christological Councils did not bear fruit until centuries later. Even in the middle ages, it took generations for the simoniacal crisis to be dispelled despite two ecumenical Councils addressing it–not to mention the investiture problem and other issues. Further, the whole reason the Council of Trent was needed was because things got even worse after the Council preceeding it. (it also took many years and was not convened in every papacy it spanned).

The quote you provide is true, it just took time for the fruits to be made present. We live in an on-demand culture, but sometimes it takes generations for these things to develop well. I’m not saying ecclesiastical historians won’t ultimately look back in a couple generations and see the Second Vatican Council as an utter disaster, I’m just saying it is still too early to make that determination.

Look at this way: all the people who perpetrated the craziness after the Council while generally ignoring the decrees were raised, educated, and spiritually nourished before it (or were taught by those who were). Most of the solid priests and bishops (and religious and lay folks) who are currently calming the waters have come afterwards and have not ignored the magisterium, including Vatican II.

 

[Genesis315]

I think we can all agree that event of the Council was followed by a bunch of junk done in the name of the Council. The problem I see, is where in the decrees of the Council does it authorize stuff like the Dutch catechism, denial of basic dogmas, denial of papal authority, sacrilige, casting aside of many devotions and pious traditions, democratization of the Church, etc.? I can’t find it, but I can find commands that go directly counter to these problems. I also think we should be able to agree that those sins were definitely not perpetrated in a spirit of fidelity and obedience.

It seems like blaming centuries of Arianism on the Nicene Creed. Diabolical disorientation indeed.

 

[rep140]

And might the VERY Public and VERY catholic denial of Humanae Vitae which has led to ever increasing power [assumed and usurped] for legal disent with our Pope, our Magisterium and a very long history of Tradition not been the fuel of this firestorm?

I don’t think that the denial of HV has much to do with decline in Church attendance. Look at the number of families you see regularly at Mass with 2 kids. As other posters have mentioned, I think it is a societal change.

Others have also questioned whether people have read the documents. Lumen Gentium wonderfully expresses the relationship of God to his Church and Jesus salvific action to all people.

I think that the only failure of V2 was that the Church wrote wonderful documents then let them gather dust. The Church and its pastors should have used these as teaching documents.

 

[cathguy]

PNewton

I think it was posted here to stir up trouble.

No! I would urge you to go back and read the posts.

It is amazing…

Some of us tried very hard while posting here regularly to maintain the level of charity on this thread. For the most part we succeeded.

However, I come home from work today and the typical stuff is back at play.

Please…

CHARITY!

No one is trying to stir up trouble and attack the Church. Go back and read the posts if you need evidence of this.

Peace!

 

[cathguy]

Cleaning house? I see. So you propose that Vatican II was an act of Divine Providence whereby millions are driven away from the Church, Catholics no longer genuflect at the Creed or the Last Gospel (which was itself canned), worship is no longer done facing God but is instead facing the audience (on a stage with polyester outfits and Protestant hippie music), and reverence and piety are ridiculed and replaced with Marxist humanism? Where the True Presence of our God in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is not reverenced, but rather the Body of God is passed out like poker chips by women in pantsuits?

That is what you call Providence? That is your ‘renewal’? The transformation of the Catholic Church into lukewarm Lutheranism by a suspected Freemason? What… was the Lord tired of being worshipped or something? I think we can rightfully attribute to Providence the fact that Vatican II did not utterly implode the entire Church.

Catholics voting for Obama, promoting abortion, disrespecting the True Presence and clapping along to quasi-heretical Protestant folk music. That’s what I see to be the fruits of Vatican II.

Thankfully, God has blessed us with an especially good pope who I believe is trying to set things right.

Excellent points, but I do wish we were more charitable with each other…

Perhaps it is just the nature of this particular medium.

I can understand your sarcasm however, in this instance.

I have heard this “God is cleaning house!” argument before, and I find it ghastly.

Do they not know what they say?

At Fatima, the visionaries saw souls pouring into hell like raindrops.

Have those who cheer the “cleaning house” read the saints who were mystics who were “granted” or “blessed with” visions of hell?

“Cleaning house” indeed… Like that is what God is doing… God wanted Vatican II so that he could “purge” the Church… He wanted His Church to crumble throughout Christendom, and he wants all these pour souls to pour into hell?

I find that argument ghastly. I can’t think of another way to put it.

 

[Genesis315]

All things are subject to the will of God. Even evils He permits to bring about a greater good. I can’t judge now why God has permitted the evils He has in our time, but it will all be made manifest eventually and we will see how it was for the greater good.

As I mentioned before, the idea of permitting certain evils as a chastisement or to prune away dead branches is not new–in fact, mystics who saw Hell, namely Sts. Catherine and Bridget, were given this reason by God Himself for schisms and the drastic falling away at their time.

This does not mean we should cheer it, but rather we should follow St. Paul’s example. He explained how the unbelieving Jews were pruned away and the Gentiles were grafted on instead–but we should not glory in this lest we fall and be cut off ourselves. Rather with charity we seek the conversion of those dead branches so they too may be re-invigorated and restored to the root.

I’m not saying that the current evils that have shaken or extinguished the faith of many are for that particular purpose–none of us can judge that right now–but it is ultimately for the greater good and a pruning or chastisement would not be without precedence.