In 500 years time, what will be said of the 50 years since VaticanII?

[NewsTheMan]

We’re coming up on 50 years since Vatican II. What will be said of the fruits of this council in 500 years time, do you think?

Just in case anybody thinks this is an inflammatory thread I am looking for positives and negatives.

 

[puzzleannie]

We’re coming up on 50 years since Vatican II. What will be said of the fruits of this council in 500 years time, do you think?

.

that there was at least a 40 year period that fought the liturgical reforms begun in the early 20th c. and brought to fruition in VII tooth and nail, and the biggest obstacles to full implementation of the Spirit-breathed resolutions of the Council were those determined to pervert the reforms to push their own agendas, and that those enemies were on both the far left and far right of the ideological spectrum. From a 500 year perspective VII will be viewed as ushering in the greatest epoch in the church since the counter-reformation.

 

[edwest2]

First, Catholics will realize in much fewer than 500 years that none of the changes associated with Vatican II were even suggested by Vatican II.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

Catholics can learn more about Vatican II right now.

harvestingthefruit.com/

Catholics can realize right now that dissidents inside and outside the Church created problems. The biggest attack was against Humanae Vitae issued by Pope Paul VI in 1968. The Sexual Revolution could not go on if too many Catholics rejected artificial birth control. In the 1970s, graphic pornography became widely available through Adult Bookstores. Then we had topless bars and strip clubs followed by abortion on demand. Then, in the 1980s, No-Fault Divorce became widely available. I remember the newspaper ads: “No kids? $75 and you’re out. Call 800-DIVORCE.”

Nope. The counter-culture attacked the faithful and created a mess. In the 1990s, Churches lost membership and mall parking lots filled up. Profanity on the radio, shock jocks, and rap. Then the internet.

In seminaries in the 1970s, prospective priests were taught Humanae Vitae but they were also led to believe that the Church would change its stance on artificial birth control someday. That’s changed now.

Peace,
Ed

 

[NewsTheMan]

From a 500 year perspective VII will be viewed as ushering in the greatest epoch in the church since the counter-reformation.

Very interesting, since this is my own view but I can’t seem to justify it. Can you expand? To me it seems like the past 50 years, and perhaps the next 50 to come, will not only be extremely important when they happen(ed) but will be considered the 50 years that (in many ways) changed Catholicism (and I don’t mean changed in the way that it strayed from Tradition/tradition).

 

[laszlo]

The aggiornamento introduced by the XXI Ecumenical council saved the Church from the total destruction. Simply compare the number and attendance of the Traditional and new form of the Mass.

And in overall meditate who terrible is to God to be squeezed into our imperfections.

 

[ProVobis]

The aggiornamento introduced by the XXI Ecumenical council saved the Church from the total destruction.

That is pure speculation only.

Simply compare the number and attendance of the Traditional and new form of the Mass.

Why not compare attendance of the same Mass right and right after the Council? The council did not order a new form of the Mass; it was done to stop people from leaving in droves. As it is, attendance at either Mass is at a modern low.

Why don’t you compare the number of scholars versus the number of illiterates while you’re at it?

 

[ZDHayden]

Within far less than 500 years, the “Spirit of Vatican II” will be long, long dead, relegated to seminary history books as a dark time of the Church. Traditional orders, who are small because they are young (there are, however, already quite a few international ones among there numbers), will continue to grow, as they are now, and more will join them. The orders which continue to refuse to toe the line will become extinct (new ones will have probably replaced them, but hey, we’re human). These traditional orders will produce fine priests, monks, nuns and great saints.

The Church, in 500 years, I’m afraid to say, will be much, much smaller, but far more devoted. In 500 years, a new batch of great saints will be recognized from our era, maybe (maybe!) from among our numbers here on this forum. A new Augustine, a new Jerome, a new Francis, in addition to the originals. Firebrands unafraid to speak the truth - that will be the core of the Church, it is my hope.

The true interpretation of Vatican II will arise and it is ONLY then that the Church will have her new springtime. She is stuck in the frost now, but the spring, which was announced far too early, will come.

Oh, and Catholics will be outright persecuted. The Church will shrink but become stronger, tried and tested in fire. Heroes from now until then, must arise or the Church will fade into obscurity (not nothingness, mind you, just unknown-ness).

 

[malphono]

The aggiornamento introduced by the XXI Ecumenical council saved the Church from the total destruction.

Well, that is an opinion held by some. Others hold an opinion that is quite the opposite. And then there is a third group which holds that the aggiornomento might well have been a good thing had it not been perverted by the agenda of the “Spirit of Vatican II” crowd (the ill-effects of which are still, most unfortunately, clearly alive).

Simply compare the number and attendance of the Traditional and new form of the Mass.

This is a false comparison. We’ve been down this road before, so that’s all I will say here.

 

[JamestheOlder]

There are three positives which will be remembered in 500 years:

One will be the expanded use of Scripture in the Mass, and the direction to homilize (if I may be permitted to use such a word), rather than sermonize.

Two will be the millions of EDUCATED Catholics who have entered the Church through the RCIA process.

Three will be the restoration of the permanent diaconate.

There will be more realized than just these few, but let’s start with these, first.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

All this is pure speculation and will be colored by the biases one hold.

If one is against Vatican II then their response will be in a negative light, if one is pro-Vatican II then their response will be in a positive light.

I fail to see any constructive use for this question.

 

[Lancer]

First…it will be viewed as a Supreme TEST…simple and clear!

Second…I believe whole heartedly that the Holy Spirit led Blessed John XXIII to call for Vatican II…to get the Church ready for the current World of New Age…Relativism…anti-Religion…Secular…Post Modern 21st Century…in other words…get the Church out of its Catholic-ghetto/ivory tower/triumphalism…and back to the Church Militant…“mixing it up” with the real world…our true mission in this life on Earth. However, I emphatically did not like the way Vatican-II was interpreted by a potpourri of “false spirits”…which led to so many abuses…i.e., “The Wild West Catholic Church”!

Third, with that said…for me the operative time period is 40 years…Vatican II closed in Dec 1965.
…think about the forty years in the desert that the Israelites roamed about…why?..A Test…because they displeased God by their lack of Faith, Hope and Love in/for Him and each other…after all that He did to lead them out slavery…out of Egypt…they grumbled and had no trust.

…so the 40 years was a penance and a test…yet, they were given a very holy man to lead them…Moses…to shepard them…who for all of his sacrificial labors and pains and struggles did not get to lead the Israelites into the Promised Land…remember only two (2) of the original group who were led out of Egypt…were allowed to enter the Promised Land…Joshua and Caleb…all the others were allowed to die throughout the forty years in the desert.

…how many of us who were in the forty year post Vatican II desert…when being in the Catholic Church was a little like the “circa 1880…Wild West…Dodge City, Tombstone”…where almost anything goes…how many of us will make it to the Promised Land…or …not!
Fourth, so, following the close of Vatican II…we have been the desert for forty years…our test was to remain faithful…to our Pope. Bishop and the Magisterium…fidelity is our (continual) Supreme test. Blessed John Paul-II …another Holy Man (who suffered greatly in many ways during his shepherding pontificate)…led the Catholic Church for 27 years and died in April 2005…nearly 40 years after Vatican-II…and He too was not allowed to lead the Church back into the (fullness of) the Promised Land…but handed it over to Benedict XVI…to “cross the Jordan”…to “a new Springtime” for the Church…remembering “springtime” in God’s language…is a time of sacrificial love and joyful obedience…even shedding blood…the seed of the Church…the only power the Church has to blossom in glory…is the glory of Our Lord’s Paschal Mystery…suffering and death on the cross at Calvary.

Lastly…e.g.
-@1900 China welcomes theChurch…@1950 there are @2 million Catholics.

-1st–50 years = 2 million converts
-@1950 China (Mao) persecutesChurch…@2000 there are 20 million Catholics.
-2nd–50 years = 20 million converts!
​

Some thoughts for consideration…
Pax Christi

 

[TomD123]

I think we don’t know. 500 yrs is a long time. It depends on the state of the Church. A lot can happen in 500 years. Think what the reaction would have been if you told the people at the time of Trent (approx 500 yrs) that most of the people in the Church would outright reject sexual morality, a large portion of people in the Church would accept abortion as ok, that most of the Church would deny the neccessity of baptism, and the church would be full of people who believe that no one is in hell!
What would they have done if they had seen some of the liturgical abuses that go on now, or what would they have said in response to : “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” !!!?? And one more thing, look at who the Bishops support. Fr. (if he even deserves that title) Pfleger was allowed to continue who his support of pro-abortion Obama publicly, and only was he suspended after years of this for something totally different. While Michael Voris, IMHO a great speaker was told not to speak at a Catholic college! Because he was “insensitive” towards other religions! (I have yet to see a comment of his that was contrary to Church doctrine) God forbid one is insensitive by calling the Church the one true Church!!!

So overall, it depends what road we go down? Both in the secular world and in the Church. However, I hope that soon the Church will turn around and end the crisis of faith. Hopefully in 500 years we will realize that Vatican 2, while it was a valid council, produced some ambiguous documents and many abuses were done after V2. Lastly, we hopefully will someday realize that it was not that V2 was so bad in itself but rather, there was not clarification to certain things after V2 and the leaders in the Church failed to crack down on some bad things.

 

[GIR]

I’ve often pictured a scenario where the West has lost the faith and has retrograded into barbarism, and missionaries from Africa and Asia will have to re-evangelize the ones that evangelized them.

My understanding is there’s always a period of chaos and uncertainty after a council where conflicting interpretations and accusations fly back and forth, with the original intent only surfacing after the emotions have died down. On the other hand, look at Ephesus and Chalsedon. The nestorians and monophysites are still around, and the Old Catholics after Vatican I. Perhaps the SSPX and others like them will end up like that.

 

[NewsTheMan]

I fail to see any constructive use for this question.

With all due respect Brother, then you haven’t read the thread

If you want to know the value of this thread from my own side - it’s about learning. I am interested in knowing not only what people think but also what objectively has happened and how we are to learn from this and what we are to take away from it.

I think the answers so far have been good and they have been fair. If overall we have a negative opinion of VII this thread will enable us to see what good will come out of it; and also what goods have come out of it. If we have an overall good opinion of VII this thread will allow us to take note of the mistakes made.

Again, with all due respect, if you find no interest in what has been said or what is to come, I don’t see the point in even posting.

 

[archangel04]

The aggiornamento introduced by the XXI Ecumenical council saved the Church from the total destruction. …

As Pro pointed out this is only speculation. We have the promise of Christ that the Church would not fall, wether the council would have happened or not, the Church would stll be here today.

Simply compare the number and attendance of the Traditional and new form of the Mass…And in overall meditate who terrible is to God to be squeezed into our imperfections.

You really can’t do this because the TLM was removed from almost every parish in the world! Two generations later the EF has been allowed at some parishes, there are still many restrictions, including when the EF can be said, time slots, what parishes, and more. Until all bishops allow the EF at most if not all paishes then and only then can you compare numbers.

 

[laszlo]

This is a false comparison. We’ve been down this road before, so that’s all I will say here.

I remember this answer (we been down this) at least a dozen times. I do not remember the original answer: how many Catholics would practice today w/o the XXI Ecumenical council, and what is the proof that the present facts: less than 2000 priest, less than 2 million adherents (much far overestimation) does not ground for answer.

I have a feeling that the traditionalist are not courageous enough to face the reality, their half filled or very small churches.

 

[ZDHayden]

Lancer, your post was beautiful and poetic.

 

[ZDHayden]

I have a feeling that the traditionalist are not courageous enough to face the reality, their half filled or very small churches.

Where’s my battle axe? I’ll go down fighting. I am in the training stage right now, but I, and every tradition-minded Catholic I know, would rather die fighting than see the Church we love suffer. There may be cowards among our numbers, there are in every group.

The Rosary is my battle axe. Latin my helm. Faith my armor. Reason my shield.

 

[laszlo]

You really can’t do this because the TLM was removed from almost every parish in the world! Two generations later the EF has been allowed at some parishes, there are still many restrictions, including when the EF can be said, time slots, what parishes, and more. Until all bishops allow the EF at most if not all paishes then and only then can you compare numbers.

In 2007 the pope allowed the TLM in all parishes of the world. This is not excuse any more.

Also you shall explain why existing TLM mass draw an average 200 or so people in a weeked, while an average suburban Church draws 2000. The Mass is there, why are not there the people?

Do not deceive yourself, try to see the hard fact.

 

[malphono]

I remember this answer (we been down this) at least a dozen times. I do not remember the original answer: how many Catholics would practice today w/o the XXI Ecumenical council, and what is the proof that the present facts: less than 2000 priest, less than 2 million adherents (much far overestimation) does not ground for answer.

And I remember the same tired pseudo-statistics more than a dozen times. Repeat them a 1000 times and it’s not going to change the fact that it’s a false comparison.

What archangel04 says has a ring of truth:

You really can’t do this because the TLM was removed from almost every parish in the world! Two generations later the EF has been allowed at some parishes, there are still many restrictions, including when the EF can be said, time slots, what parishes, and more. Until all bishops allow the EF at most if not all paishes then and only then can you compare numbers.

In any case, that’s the last I will say on the matter in this thread.

I have a feeling that the traditionalist are not courageous enough to face the reality, their half filled or very small churches.

One doesn’t have to be a so-called “traditionalist” to appreciate Mass according to the Missal of 1962. There are indeed many who simply prefer its liturgical and theological expression.