How has VII lowered Mass Attendence and Vocations?

[SenorSalsa]

I understand that both have lessened in the last 50 years or so–by more or less depending on the source–but it is hard to believe the cause is Vatican II. To me it seems more logical/likely that the two happend simaltaniously, and not in a cause and effect manner.

 

[kleary]

It is not Vatican II that has done this…but a false interpretation of the documents of Vatican II and what we see called “The spirit of Vatican II”.

From the beginning those lurking around in the woodwork since Vatican II had planned to hijack the council and interpret the documents issued from the Council in ways the council fathers never meant.

One proof- Archbishop Lefebvre signed the documents, particularly the one on the Sacred Liturgy.

Ken

 

[Spiller]

It is not Vatican II that has done this…but a false interpretation of the documents of Vatican II and what we see called “The spirit of Vatican II”.

From the beginning those lurking around in the woodwork since Vatican II had planned to hijack the council and interpret the documents issued from the Council in ways the council fathers never meant.

One proof- Archbishop Lefebvre signed the documents, particularly the one on the Sacred Liturgy.

Ken

So? A man who died in excommunication from the Church for defying the Pope?

 

[saint_rafael]

Vatican II called for very modest reform in the liturgy.
The New Mass or the Missal of Paul VI was a complete revolution and not what the Council Fathers had in mind.

Many bishops after the Council said that if they knew what they were going to get with the New Mass, they would have never voted for it.

 

[rwoehmke]

Since we seem to be dealing with opinions, I will add mine. In my opinion no one has ever proved a link between either Vatican II or the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II” had much if anything to do with Catholic bailouts by clergy, religious, and laity. Anyone who moved into adult hood during the 60’s and 70’s realizes that almost everyone’s values, whether Catholic, mainline denominations, or plain old vanilla nothings was cast totally into chaos by the events of those decades. Few people still lived in the towns where they were born. Grandma and/or Grandpa no longer lived in the same house as their Children and Grandchildren. It may not have been as indiscriminately bloody as the French Revolution but “the system” took one helluva hit.

To look at a broader picture the world changed more in the last century than any other period of time in its history. Just one example. In 1863 one could travel by rail from Buffalo New York to Chicago in just 16 hours. I would guess today, not counting travel and wait times at the airport, the trip is about two hours by commercial jet, lots less by military. Lincoln depended on the telegraph for war news in 1862, today Bush can watch the news happening clear around the world in his office in almost real time. Consider that in 1940 many Americans had no refrigerator, no telephone, and many families one if no car at all. The TV was an experimental novelty. Supermarket? What’s a Supermarket. Open on Sundays? No way! The outdoor biffy and hand pumped water and no electricity in rural areas was common. Running hot water? Shower everyday if desired? Near miracle. If anyone does not think this rush of almost daily change did not impact our ways of living and coping they gotta be no younger than “boomers.” I think we have yet to learn how to “live and die” in our new environment and I don’t just mean green grass, shrubs, and trees. It is still all so amazing to anyone born before the end of the great depression.

 

[Spiller]

Vatican II called for very modest reform in the liturgy.
**The New Mass or the Missal of Paul VI was a complete revolution and not what the Council Fathers had in mind. **

**Many bishops after the Council **said that if they knew what they were going to get with the New Mass, they would have never voted for it.

Thankfully you aren’t one of the “Council Fathers” nor do you speak for them.

Please provide quotes and URLs for four (4) of them where they say this.

 

[I_Believe]

VII itself didn’t do it. Poor catechesis and Satan siezing the moment is to blame. The majority of Roman Catholics, both hierarchy and laity, have failed to meet the challenge.

It all gets down to Faith. And so many have lost it.

:twocents:

 

[aristotle]

Thankfully you aren’t one of the “Council Fathers” nor do you speak for them.

Please provide quotes and URLs for four (4) of them where they say this.

How about just one, if he’s important enough. Of course, four wouldn’t be hard to come up with. Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, has made it clear, along with many others in the heirarchy, that the current translation of the Ordinary Form into English is a poor one, and this is why a new translation has been in the works.

This is something that is well accepted, even within Catholic Answers. Jimmy Akin has had some strong words to say about the current English translation, the serious problems in using the NAB, issues such as the pro multis, etc.

There is nothing wrong with the Ordinary Form, in itself, and much that is good. Implementation has been a disaster, however.

Ah yes, quotes…

“This is particularly clear in the case of the so-called ‘parody Masses’, in which the text of the Mass was set to a theme or melody that came from secular music, with the result that anyone hearing it might think he was listening to the latest “hit”. It is clear that these opportunities for artistic creativity and the adoption of secular tunes brought danger with them. Music was no longer developing out of prayer, but, with the new demand for artistic autonomy, was now heading away from the liturgy; it was becoming an end in itself, opening the door to new, very different ways of feeling and of experiencing the world. Music was alienating the liturgy from its true nature.” - Ratzinger on Music in the West

“Vatican Norms for Translation of Biblical Texts” asserts his problems with some English translations, and can be found quickly online.

Jasques Maritain, great Catholic philosopher, and adviser of the Council, wrote an entire book, his last, called “Peasant of the Garonne” where he praises Vatican II, but warns against many liturgical errors translations of the Ordinary Form have lead to in France. And after writing about liturgical errors wrought from a misapplication of the Second Vatican Council he writes:

“And yet this same Church accuses herself, often in very harsh terms, she weeps for her failures, she begs to be purified, she pleads unceasingly for forgiveness… for us to take advantage of that to strike hard on her breast, when in reality we are speaking of either the failures of the Hierarchy or of the sometimes atrocious miseries of the Christian world, that is a silliness.”

Of course Lefebvre and many other Council Fathers had stronger objections, and then there were the likes of Hans Kung and Remi de Roo who didn’t think the council went far enough.

His Holiness, Pope Paul VI, even was concerned with the effects misapplication of the council had, speaking of the smoke of hell in the Vatican.

 

[markadm]

The cause is the cheap understanding of what Vatican II was, where our holy religion has been delivered into the hands of modernism. You can see this everywhere. Society is infected with modes of behaviour that to the deeply religious of, say, 50 years ago would have been anametha. And yet society thinks this is normal. You then see this coming into the Church, and people in the Church thinking this is normal.

For example, and this sounds like a little thing, but no longer respecting modesty or decorum in behaviour and dress at Church. You can easily trace that back to the 60s.

 

[ethelzguy]

Since we seem to be dealing with opinions, I will add mine. In my opinion no one has ever proved a link between either Vatican II or the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II” had much if anything to do with Catholic bailouts by clergy, religious, and laity. Anyone who moved into adult hood during the 60’s and 70’s realizes that almost everyone’s values, whether Catholic, mainline denominations, or plain old vanilla nothings was cast totally into chaos by the events of those decades. Few people still lived in the towns where they were born. Grandma and/or Grandpa no longer lived in the same house as their Children and Grandchildren. It may not have been as indiscriminately bloody as the French Revolution but “the system” took one helluva hit.

To look at a broader picture the world changed more in the last century than any other period of time in its history. Just one example. In 1863 one could travel by rail from Buffalo New York to Chicago in just 16 hours. I would guess today, not counting travel and wait times at the airport, the trip is about two hours by commercial jet, lots less by military. Lincoln depended on the telegraph for war news in 1862, today Bush can watch the news happening clear around the world in his office in almost real time. Consider that in 1940 many Americans had no refrigerator, no telephone, and many families one if no car at all. The TV was an experimental novelty. Supermarket? What’s a Supermarket. Open on Sundays? No way! The outdoor biffy and hand pumped water and no electricity in rural areas was common. Running hot water? Shower everyday if desired? Near miracle. If anyone does not think this rush of almost daily change did not impact our ways of living and coping they gotta be no younger than “boomers.” I think we have yet to learn how to “live and die” in our new environment and I don’t just mean green grass, shrubs, and trees. It is still all so amazing to anyone born before the end of the great depression.

Well said

I personally feel, that Vatican II has simply become the whipping-boy of choice for those who are angry with the Church, for whatever reason(s). Kind of like all these different “Christian” churches, who’s main commonality is their bashing of Catholics.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t think a cause/effect relationship can ever reallly be established in things like this, one way or the other.

Certainly, however, many “found” in it things that were already going on in their hearts and minds. I remember VII quite well, being in college at the time. I also remember being puzzled at how some fellow students from certain places seemed almost to belong to a “different Church” from others. Dissent was not as flamboyant as it later became, but the “spirit of VII” was there before VII. It varied a great deal with individuals and from place to place.

I do think many who had already departed from the teachings of the Church did find VII a wonderful excuse to do what they already wanted to do.

Many changes preceded VII, as a previous poster noted. To me, perhaps the most significant force was the person of Hugh Hefner who, in a way, might have been the most morally influential figure of our time. That probably seems silly to those who did not read his “philosophy”, endlessly repeated and developed in his magazine. Of course, it was all presented as “tolerance”. I recall that, just prior to VII, it was exceedingly widely read. But the influence of the magazine itself, and others that imitated it; was not necessarily so much in pornography but in the way materialism and self-gratification were presented. Even among those who rejected the pornography and the formal “philosophy”, the “me-ism” of the commercial presentations had a wide effect. It was a toxic brew. Definitive antecedents are hard to prove, and, of course, Hefner’s “philosophy” had to have at least a somewhat receptive audience or it, and his commercialization of everything, would have failed immediately. But I will always believe his influence outweighed almost any other single one in the radical self-affirmation that was really at the core of the disasters in the Church that followed VII.

The most troubling thing about all of it seems to me to be that it has not only not left the Church, but has become stirred right into the mix. Catholic schools themselves affirm commercialism and “I’m special” and all of the little messages that are so pernicious.

Just a tiny example. I suppose Catholic schools have had little fund-raisers more or less forever. I realize this is anecdotal, but when, e.g., it came time to sell Christmas cards, the rewards for the students who sold well were symbolic. A holy card, a star on the board, whatever. Now, the rewards for much more high-dollar “sales” are consumer goods themselves of some kind. A small thing, but to me, it sends the wrong message to children; a message that has long antecedents and that has sunk deep roots.

 

[cam100]

I suspect that the drop in attendance and vocations has more to do with secularization of society than with Vatican II. Across the board, traditional religious denominations seem to have had trouble keeping people over the last 40 years. This is not just an issue with Catholics. It also seems that the vast majority of people that stop going to church do so because it is too restrictive and conservative for them, not because it’s too liberal.

I think that part of the problem lies in problems with religious education that took place well before Vatican II. As a result, that generation wasn’t equipped to deal with the pressures of an increasingly secular world.

 

[markadm]

I think that part of the problem lies in problems with religious education that took place well before Vatican II. As a result, that generation wasn’t equipped to deal with the pressures of an increasingly secular world.

It’s a funny cause and effect thing. An increasingly secular world now likes to almost outlaw religious education, which in turn creates badly catechised people, who become increasingly secular in their outlook. Repeat ad infinitum.

Whatever the cause, we need to break out of it now. Pointing at poor R.E. in the 40s and 50s may well not be the answer…

 

[stmaria]

=rwoehmke;3653986]Since we seem to be dealing with opinions, I will add mine. In my opinion no one has ever proved a link between either Vatican II or the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II” had much if anything to do with Catholic bailouts by clergy, religious, and laity.

The Spirit of Vatican II was a tolerance for error. That is why after Vatican II heretical theologians like Kung, Schillebeeckx, Curran etc. were not excommunicated. Their books were studied in the seminaries instead of St Augustine and previous Popes.
That is why the index of forbidden books was abolished, the Oath against Modernism was no longer required to be said.

Pope Paul VI speech to the National Federation of Schools July 9,1969
“ We will have, therefore, a period in the life of the Church, and consequently in that of each of its children, of greater liberty, that is of fewer legal obligations and internal inhibitions. The former discipline will be reduce, arbitrary intolerance and despotism abolished, the prevailing laws simplified, and the exercise of authority tempered.”

 

[SaintTrainee]

Well said

I personally feel, that Vatican II has simply become the whipping-boy of choice for those who are angry with the Church, for whatever reason(s). Kind of like all these different “Christian” churches, who’s main commonality is their bashing of Catholics.

What you said is Well Said!!

It looks like there are people who feel better about their faith by blaming Vatican II for all of the Churches problems and for what they see as wrongs; it will make them look so much more holy and reverant than those of us who do attend the N O Mass and do get something out of it. Well if Vatican II is the problem how can all of the growth in the church be explained? How can it be explained that the Hispanic Catholic population is growing in leaps and bonds? What about Catholics in Africa? How can all of this be explained? Change is Good.

 

[SenorSalsa]

I have seen no reasons about why “the spirit of VII” has caused the downturn in attendence and vocations and whatnot. The quote vrom Pope Paul VI comes close, but its a stretch to make the jump from individual liberty to tolerance of error.

 

[ethelzguy]

I don’t have any hard data, but from what I see around my area, ALL the old mainstream protestant denominations are hurting.

Nondenominational Bible Churches and “Christian Fellowships” are cropping up everywhere. I think that falls in line with earlier posts about authority and today’s folks rejecting it. People are just looking for a feel-good religious social club to be a part of.

As I look at so many church facilities for sale in my area, they are protestant churches that have congregations that have literally “died out”. Their kids moved on to the feel good churches and when the parents die off, so do the parents churches.

Can’t blame Vatican II for that. It isn’t just the Catholic Church that has seen changes since World War II. :nope:

 

[saint_rafael]

Anyone who wants to know about the crisis needs just one name:
Michael Davies.
This man has written many books explaining all the confusion surrounding Vatican II and the New Mass.

As far as low Mass Attendace and low vocations, the culprit is the New Mass that has secularized the Church.

The New Mass will go down in history as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of the world.

 

[SenorSalsa]

Anyone who wants to know about the crisis needs just one name:
Michael Davies.
This man has written many books explaining all the confusion surrounding Vatican II and the New Mass.

As far as low Mass Attendace and low vocations, the culprit is the New Mass that has secularized the Church.

The New Mass will go down in history as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of the world.

First off, he may or may not have any valid points in his books, i have never read any, however a quick search showed me that he has written a three volume book defending the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre, to me, a person loses some ethos in his argument if he openly supports a person who was excommunicated and possibly started a schismatic group.(please do not start that agument, lets just agree that some say it is, and not debate which side is right)

Whatever the case may be though, i think it should be taken into acount that VII happened in the 60’s, a time that was ripe for dissatisfaction of “the man”. People were leaving all kinds of establishment, from the Church to Family Structures, Traditional Jobs, etc. I dont think it can be argued that all of this was caused by VII, and therefore, it seems unlikely that one part would be caused soley by VII and its aftermath.

Thidly, goin down as the “biggest mistake in history”? How about the Holocaust, the genocides of Soviet Russia, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Darfur. The Bay of Pigs. Do you only want to count Church history? How about the Great Schism, The Reformation, The Crusades. The piles of Heresies that have cropped up through the centuries. The statement is laughable

 

[ethelzguy]

Anyone who wants to know about the crisis needs just one name:
Michael Davies.
This man has written many books explaining all the confusion surrounding Vatican II and the New Mass.

As far as low Mass Attendace and low vocations, the culprit is the New Mass that has secularized the Church.

The New Mass will go down in history as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of the world.

Ignoring the real world around us will not solve this issue any more than a revised Mass will. Changing the Mass isn’t going to make people flock to the Catholic Church in droves.

If you want to believe that a new Mass secularized the Church, that is your choice. I personally don’t see the Church as secularized, especially in comparison the the secular society that surrounds it.