This pretty much nails it. The Netherlands are the quintessential example of the devastation wrought by the misreading the signs of the times and opening up too much to the world. Given the present state of the Church and the world compared to that described by St. John XXIII when he opened Vatican II, we need more of a Council of Trent approach than a Vatican II approach these days–a clear and definitive reaffirmation of the fundamental doubted and forgotten truths and straightforward and bold condemnations of the opposing errors, and a strengthening of ecclesiastical and liturgical discipline firmly rooted in tradition.One of the intentions of the Vatican Council II was for the Church to open up to society, which it did, but society for its part has not opened up to the Church. On the contrary, it has expelled it from public life. The Church then fell into one of the deepest faith crises in its history and today is not in the best position to transmit the faith to society. Many lay people and pastors are confused about the contents of the faith. Only after putting its own house in order will the Church once again be truly capable of evangelizing the world.
And the spirit of Vatican II had nothing at all to do with this ?Until the beginning of the 1960s, Holland stood out as one of the most Christian nations…
Then, very quickly, the collapse.
The Cardinal interviewed in the article points to this as a cause. In addition to the passage I quoted in my prior post, he notes a dying off of that generation.And the spirit of Vatican II had nothing at all to do with this ?
Many speak of the danger of a schism, but I think not. I rather think that what has already happened with us in Holland will happen in many parts of the world. There has been a silent healing through the turnover of generations. […] Because who will ultimately remain in the Church? The priests and laity of '68, of those years of disarray, with ultra-progressive ideas, are almost gone. In Holland there are still those who believe, who pray, who have a personal relationship with Christ.
I agree butThe Cardinal interviewed in the article points to this as a cause.
that Vatican II did not cause this. We read here post after post claiming that to say Vatican II caused this is to commit the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc? It was the culture, the 60’s, the rise of secularism, or the smoke of Satan that caused this, but it was not Vatican II.The Church then fell into one of the deepest faith crises in its history
The texts of Vatican II in a vacuum did not start the fire, so to speak (although the theme of “aggiornamento” did inspire a lot of the nuttiness in the Church). But, the whole point of Vatican II was to make the Church more effective at her mission in a particular set of circumstances (“the modern world”). The pastoral approach of dialogue with the world and opening to it was geared to a more friendly world–it was totally mismatched to what the circumstances turned out to be–which made the Church less effective, rather than more. The older approach, still informed in a lot of ways by the Council of Trent and the 19th century and early 20th century Popes, was much more designed to withstand a hostile world.that Vatican II did not cause this. We read here post after post claiming that to say Vatican II caused this is to commit the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc ? It was the culture, the 60’s, the rise of secularism, or the smoke of Satan that caused this, but it was not Vatican II.
Again, a pastoral approach intended for a world like the above is going to do more harm than good when the reality is the opposite, as it was almost immediately in '60s.But all such error is so manifestly contrary to rightness and goodness, and produces such fatal results, that our contemporaries show every inclination to condemn it of their own accord—especially that way of life which repudiates God and His law, and which places excessive confidence in technical progress and an exclusively material prosperity. It is more and more widely understood that personal dignity and true self-realization are of vital importance and worth every effort to achieve. More important still, experience has at long last taught men that physical violence, armed might, and political domination are no help at all in providing a happy solution to the serious problems which affect them.
If you mean every Sunday and Holy Day, then it is probably a lot less.18% of the population attending church in the UK? I doubt it’s even half that. Or do they mean 18% of people who say they are Christians?
18% = Church-attending Christians (individuals saying at least monthly)
55% = Non-practicing Christians (individuals saying less than monthly)
23% = Religiously Unaffiliated
4% = Other religions/don’t know/ref. (Mostly Muslim)
Unfortunate but true. When I lived there, I went to Mass in magnificent large churches with fewer than 10 people in attendance. Sad.Then, very quickly, the collapse. To the point that today Holland is one of the most de-Christianized countries in Europe.
I don’t get it either. Such surveys and articles don’t make much of a dent on me.I wonder why I and likely many others are drawn to these “End of Christianity” surveys and articles