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

  • Thread starter Thread starter NewsTheMan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I do think that the Catholic Church of the future will have female priests. I think they will be allowed under an argument to the effect that Christ chose 12 men to be his Apostles, and so their successors, the bishops, who are the chief officiators of the Mass, must be male; but since priests are in a sense offering on behalf of the bishop, who is the primary celebrant, women too can serve as priets, as fellow assistants to the bishop. It probably would sound much more official than the way I put it, but that’s the legal loophole I see being used in the future–a distinction between the episcopasy and the regular clergy. They may even use as (dubious) support how the East has made a distinction between its white clergy and black clergy.
I hate to dissapoint you, but that’s never going to happen. This is part of the deposit of faith that only men can be ordained to the priesthood. Blessed JP2 already said with authority that the Church has no authority to ordained women even if she wanted to. It’s pointless to bring up the topic has the Church has already spoken on the matter. It’s like arguing that the sun revolves around the earth, no matter how many times you say this is so or that it should be that way, it will not change.
 
? But they left in droves after the new order of Mass.
It would seem that now with more than double the world’s population of 1960, one would expect more than double the mass attendance of 1960, or at least 15 full Masses each Sunday given the same number of parishes, encompassing both forms and all translations of Mass. It appears we’re far, far short of that.
 
I do think that the Catholic Church of the future will have female priests. I think they will be allowed under an argument to the effect that Christ chose 12 men to be his Apostles, and so their successors, the bishops, who are the chief officiators of the Mass, must be male; but since priests are in a sense offering on behalf of the bishop, who is the primary celebrant, women too can serve as priets, as fellow assistants to the bishop. It probably would sound much more official than the way I put it, but that’s the legal loophole I see being used in the future–a distinction between the episcopasy and the regular clergy.
If bishops had this power of delegation, then there would be no limitations for anyone to become priest and conceptually all (of any sex or age) could be priests and celebrate their own Mass. I don’t think this is theologically possible so I will have to disagree with your premise. Even loopholes have limitations.
 
It would seem that now with more than double the world’s population of 1960, one would expect more than double the mass attendance of 1960, or at least 15 full Masses each Sunday given the same number of parishes, encompassing both forms and all translations of Mass. It appears we’re far, far short of that.
OK, let’s slow down here and look at a few things.
  1. The world population growth has not been in the Christian countries. It has been among non-Christian societies and emerging Churches, such as Africa. The general population among Christians has actually suffered a decrees in births and an increase in senior citizens. That’s part of the economic problem that the West is facing. We’re going to see a decrease in the number of Christians in the West, just because of attrition. We’re contracepting and aborting ourselves out of existence.
  2. Move from contraception and abortion, the Church’s positions on contraception, same-sex marriage, abortion, the protection of illegal immigrants, the sex abuse scandal, and other social and moral issues have angered many people. I’m not saying that the Church is wrong. The Church is right; but that’s not going to make it very popular in today’s society. The Church has strong competition out there.
  3. Many people lack good catechesis and others have not wanted it. In my neck of the woods we have wonderful programs for Catholics. We live in a diocese of two million people, most of whom are Christian. Yet, there are only one million registered Catholics in our parishes. I estimate that there are 500,000 Catholics out there somewhere. They are the ones that need these programs. Whenever I go out to preach a retreat, a mission or to do a workshop on some spiritual or theological subject, I see the same faces, the ones who don’t need to hear me over and over again. 😃
  4. Catholics in the West have also helped to shoot the Church in the foot. I was in the mission in South America and in the Caribbean. I noticed a big difference between those Catholics and Catholics in Europe and the USA. Whenever someone in the Church messed up, the local people would comment it among themselves. However, they have a very strong sense of family. Family is very important to them. The Church is part of their family. They have an unspoken rule. They don’t air their family’s skeletons. They deal with them internally and those that they can’t solve, they just step around them. Some will leave their Church family. However, interestingly enough, they don’t bad mouth the Church, because they know that other Catholics will lynch them. They take it very personally, as if you were badmouthing their sister or mother.
During my years of study in Europe and as an American, I’ve noticed that our people feel very free to trash the Church and to air her skeletons for everyone to see. We have a very distorted view of transparency. It’s more indiscretion than transparency. We don’t pay attention to who is listening and how it sounds to them. We open our mouths and go off on the Church. Just look at some of the posts on CAF. People bring up issues that they should be taking up with their pastors and bishops or with a religious community, not publishing for public consumption. The non-Catholic and the weak Catholic will see this and will cease to take us seriously.

Despite all of the above, we’re not doing as badly as people think. We have many strong parishes I help out at a parish that has seven masses every weekend. It has confessions every Saturday, with two priests on duty. There are five priests, four deacons and six religious brothers at that parish. Their church can seat about 800 people and all the masses are full. They have a youth mass on Sunday nights that is full of teens and their parents. They have a religious education program with 600 kids and a youth ministry with 30 adult volunteers. We tease the priests, because since the arrival of the brothers, five men have entered our community to zero entering the diocesan seminary. They asked us what we do. I always tell them that we look cute in grey. 😉

We have five pregnancy centers owned by the diocese completely supported by parishes, not the chancery. Each parish is assigned a pregnancy center that it must. support with money and volunteers.

I worked in another diocese that has the largest network of homes for the developmentally disabled, all owned and run by the local parishes. And in another parish where I was stationed they don’t have a single parish staffed by religious, because they don’t need us. They have enough vocations to the secular seminary. The religious are free to live their charism. When I was there, we lived in a neighborhood and spent our days walking the streets and talking to people. It was great just to be a friar again. 😛

Even in our goofy USA, there is a lot of good happening.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Traditional Catholicism is the unity of these wonderful schools of Christian Spirituality. I truly believe that to achieve what we hope, the recovery of Christian tradition, each of us must embrace one of these schools. Going at it solo is not going to work. It only makes us negative and frustrates us.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Br. JR,

How does one go about doing what you advised above?
 
Br. JR,

How does one go about doing what you advised above?
The formal way would be to enter a secular or a religious order.

The informal way of proceeding is to begin to read the writings of these schools. For example, I came to become a Franciscan after many years of exposure to all things Franciscan. It all began with a simple book report.

When I was in grade six, the brothers asked us to write a book report. I wanted to learn about Francis of Assisi. I was Jewish and I was at a Franciscan school. Every October 4, the brothers had this major celebration in honor of their founder. They made all of the students attend mass under penalty of expulsion. It was the only time that I saw them seriously threaten. You could walk off with the poor box and be forgiven, but you had better be there for the mass of St. Francis. Then, you went home. There was no school that day. Everyday they had us pray to St. Francis. We had to learn the Peace Prayer. There was a rather interesting practice among them, they walked barefoot around the school. The wore sandals when they went outside.

Anyway, I read this book called The Perfect Joy of St. Francis and I did my book report. I was fascinated by this character and began to read every biography that I could find about him. Being in a Franciscan school, this was easy. They had an entire stack on Francis and Franciscanism in their library. By the time that I was in high school, I knew that I wanted to be like this man and his sons. However, he was a Christian.

I recall siting in the school chapel crying. I wanted so much to be like this man that I would daydream about it in class. By the time that I reached high school graduation, I realized that I had to become a Christian. What made this man so wonderful was that he was a Christian. The rest is history. I became a Christian.

I eventually married, had three children, was widowed and lost one of my sons. I raised two kids by myself and became a Franciscan. During those years, I read everything I could find on Francis and Franciscan spirituality, Franciscan history, Franciscan theology and more. I attended their workshops. I found out that they even have degrees on Francis of Assisi. So . . . I took courses in Franciscan studies. I visited anything Franciscan that I could.

Needless to say, by the time that I became a brother, I wanted to get a doctorate in theology and I wanted to major in Franciscan studies. So I wrote a dissertation on Franciscan Detachment and Its Influence on Teresa of Avila.

That’s how I went about it. I read and I became familiar with the Franciscan school. Other people have the benefit of being close to a religious house or a retreat house run by one of these communities. Other people watch movies. Others do the internet searches. There are many sites on Benedict, Francis, Dominic, Teresa of Avila, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, Jose Maria Escriva and the other great schools. Mother Teresa reflects the Franciscan school. She borrows quite a bit from St. Francis. Jose Maria Escriva borrows a lot from St. Francis de Sales, who was a master on lay spirituality. There are also periodicals that the different traditions put out and you can subscribe to them.

The important thing is to keep in mind that being a Traditional Catholic is not about attending the EF. That’s important to some Traditional Catholics and it’s a very good thing too. But if that’s all that one does, then one is missing the spirit that gives life to the body. The Holy Spirit has raised these families and teachers to breath life into the Church. They are part of and essential to the Catholic Tradition.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
The important thing is to keep in mind that being a Traditional Catholic is not about attending the EF. That’s important to some Traditional Catholics and it’s a very good thing too. But if that’s all that one does, then one is missing the spirit that gives life to the body. The Holy Spirit has raised these families and teachers to breath life into the Church. They are part of and essential to the Catholic Tradition.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
I completely agree with you. Such study can only deepen one’s spirituality and understanding of God.

I think I’ll take the reading route. 🙂
 
I completely agree with you. Such study can only deepen one’s spirituality and understanding of God.

I think I’ll take the reading route. 🙂
I mean no disrespect to those who prefer the Extraordinary Form of the mass. Loving the mass is a good thing. Nurturing the spiritual life within one of the established traditions is essential to a life of inner peace and a powerful aid to pray the mass in any form or any of the rites.

Now that I think about it, if people in the future were to say something about us, I think it would be that we lacked an ordered spiritual life. We’re all over the place.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I mean no disrespect to those who prefer the Extraordinary Form of the mass. Loving the mass is a good thing. Nurturing the spiritual life within one of the established traditions is essential to a life of inner peace and a powerful aid to pray the mass in any form or any of the rites.

Now that I think about it, if people in the future were to say something about us, I think it would be that we lacked an ordered spiritual life. We’re all over the place.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
I totally “feel you” as they say in the slang.

I’m one of those people that prefer the EF, but I also attend a very reverent OF.

I feel as if I’m absorbing quite a bit all at once.

Right now, I am trying to learn the basics: the catechism, the Latin mass, rosary, litanies Liturgy of the Hours.

There are so many laws and rules, but I know there is much more than that. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.
 
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.
It will be as forgotten as the 50 years after the Council of Trent.
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.
I’ve been thinking for a while that the Church could use a good persecution…
 
I’ve never met anyone who has left the Church because of the loss of Latin. From a country that had over 90% Roman Catholics to 80% today, with only half of that actually active and practicing Catholics, I’ve seen many reasons why people left. From anti-Catholic propaganda and proselytization to secularization, to politicization of the Church.

I’m not saying that no one left the Church because of the loss of Latin, but its not as big as some may claim here. If its the chief reason, then why I haven’t met one?🤷 in fact most people I still see in church today are those who were alive pre-Vatican II. Those who are leaving are those who never got a taste of the TLM.
 
OK, let’s slow down here and look at a few things.
  1. The world population growth has not been in the Christian countries. …
  2. Move from contraception and abortion, the Church’s positions on contraception, same-sex marriage, abortion, the protection of illegal immigrants, the sex abuse scandal, and other social and moral issues have angered many people. I’m not saying that the Church is wrong. The Church is right; but that’s not going to make it very popular in today’s society. The Church has strong competition out there.
  3. Many people lack good catechesis and others have not wanted it. …
  4. Catholics in the West have also helped to shoot the Church in the foot…
Br. JR, okay, you’ve given some reasons why the Church’s attendance today is not proportionate to the world’s population as it was in 1960. But one could make the argument that attendance should have actually increased, based on the following:
  1. Relaxation of Friday meat abstinence rules. Also most of the fasting.
  2. Allowance of Catholics to use their consciences in matters of birth control.
  3. Relaxation of fast time before communion.
  4. Shorten the communion formula.
  5. Allowance of fulfilling Sunday obligation on Saturday.
  6. Removal of the need to follow the Latin.
  7. Allowance of the priest to face the congregation.
  8. Allowance of every word of the Mass to be heard by everyone.
  9. Removal of all barriers between sanctuary and congregation in many places.
  10. Allowance of readers, cantors, EMHC, CITH, etc.
  11. A friendlier and more casual environment within the Mass and communion setting.
  12. More Protestant hymns sung.
  13. The Popes visiting more countries.
  14. And let’s not forget more air conditioned churches.
Now many list these things as being most wonderful. Yet the numbers don’t seem to reflect that verbal enthusiam, not inside many, if not most, of the Catholic parishes in America, Europe, South America since 1960 anyway. (I live near a mosque and a mega Church so I know what some of these numbers could be.)

I’m still thinking that perhaps the loss of Catholic identity is the real culprit here. The Church has always had competition from other denominations and faiths but the lines between Catholicsm and non-Catholicism have definitely been blurred in the last 50 years. Who knows how much further they can get blurred in the next 450-500 years.
 
I hate to dissapoint you, but that’s never going to happen. This is part of the deposit of faith that only men can be ordained to the priesthood. Blessed JP2 already said with authority that the Church has no authority to ordained women even if she wanted to. It’s pointless to bring up the topic has the Church has already spoken on the matter. It’s like arguing that the sun revolves around the earth, no matter how many times you say this is so or that it should be that way, it will not change.
You are right that JP2 said that the Church has no authority to ordain women, and that it’s pointless to bring it up. I do not think the ordination of women will be within the present theological context. It may take another theological shift in the Catholic Church, and perhaps another council, for things to change. Five hundred years ago the Popes of Rome stressed that there was no salvation outside the Catholic Church, that communion with and being under the authority of the Pope of Rome was necessary for salvation. The emphasis of today is on degrees of being Catholic–e.g. Protestants who are baptized are in a certain though imperfect communion. I believe there will be a similiar change of theological context that will make the present expressions of the Roman Pontiffs seem outdated, even reactionary, and so without the force and relevance of whatever the Popes of Rome will then be saying.

The Catholics of 500 years ago would be surprised to see female altar servers, priests facing the people, female EMHCs, and modern churches that have bizarre architecture. I think if Catholics were to fast forward to 2511, they would see and hear things that to them appear and sound preposterous, but which are adamantly defended and reasoned by Catholics of the time.

That’s my opinion in any case.
 
You are right that JP2 said that the Church has no authority to ordain women, and that it’s pointless to bring it up. I do not think the ordination of women will be within the present theological context. It may take another theological shift in the Catholic Church, and perhaps another council, for things to change. Five hundred years ago the Popes of Rome stressed that there was no salvation outside the Catholic Church, that communion with and being under the authority of the Pope of Rome was necessary for salvation. The emphasis of today is on degrees of being Catholic–e.g. Protestants who are baptized are in a certain though imperfect communion. I believe there will be a similiar change of theological context that will make the present expressions of the Roman Pontiffs seem outdated, even reactionary, and so without the force and relevance of whatever the Popes of Rome will then be saying.

The Catholics of 500 years ago would be surprised to see female altar servers, priests facing the people, female EMHCs, and modern churches that have bizarre architecture. I think if Catholics were to fast forward to 2511, they would see and hear things that to them appear and sound preposterous, but which are adamantly defended and reasoned by Catholics of the time.

That’s my opinion in any case.
All that you have mention, excluding salvation outside the faith, are not part of the deposite of faith, meaning that they were always subject to change under an indult or special permision. The priesthood regardless of who tries to change it is not subject to that because it is part of the deposit of faith. The Catholic church still teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church, this is a teaching that canno’t change, all that happen was that it was defined more in th 2nd council. Meaning that those who die in the grace of God are Catholic, wether they practice the faith or not is a different story. Regardless of the fact that subject is not part of the OP question and Iwon’t derail the thread, if you wish to discuss it further I would advise you to start a new thread.
 
Br. JR, okay, you’ve given some reasons why the Church’s attendance today is not proportionate to the world’s population as it was in 1960. But one could make the argument that attendance should have actually increased, based on the following:
  1. Relaxation of Friday meat abstinence rules. Also most of the fasting.
  2. Allowance of Catholics to use their consciences in matters of birth control.
  3. Relaxation of fast time before communion.
  4. Shorten the communion formula.
  5. Allowance of fulfilling Sunday obligation on Saturday.
  6. Removal of the need to follow the Latin.
  7. Allowance of the priest to face the congregation.
  8. Allowance of every word of the Mass to be heard by everyone.
  9. Removal of all barriers between sanctuary and congregation in many places.
  10. Allowance of readers, cantors, EMHC, CITH, etc.
  11. A friendlier and more casual environment within the Mass and communion setting.
  12. More Protestant hymns sung.
  13. The Popes visiting more countries.
  14. And let’s not forget more air conditioned churches.
Now many list these things as being most wonderful. Yet the numbers don’t seem to reflect that verbal enthusiam, not inside many, if not most, of the Catholic parishes in America, Europe, South America since 1960 anyway. (I live near a mosque and a mega Church so I know what some of these numbers could be.)

I’m still thinking that perhaps the loss of Catholic identity is the real culprit here. The Church has always had competition from other denominations and faiths but the lines between Catholicsm and non-Catholicism have definitely been blurred in the last 50 years. Who knows how much further they can get blurred in the next 450-500 years.
Believe it or not, most of the above are not really at the core of the decresed number. The biggest hit was the ban on ABC. Number 13 has actually helped. The number of young people in the Church has increased. The number of younger religious sisters and religious brothers has also increased. The number of secular seminarians has increased. What has dropped is the number of religious men being ordained. However, I attribute that to the fact that the orders that were ordaining the largest number of men, no longer need that many priests. For example, we only ordain 1 in 10. There is no need for that many priests. We do need frias. Other religious communities of men have done the same. However, the number of men entering to become religious has dramatically increased, even with the very long formation, which is usually longer than the formation to be a diocesan priest.

The point is, as Pope John Paul said, “Be not afraid.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I think that, objectively speaking, the way in which VII is viewed 500 years from now very much depends on what the world itself will be like then. I think, FWIW, all the opinions expressed thus far have been interesting and for myself educational.

And who now can even remotely visualize what the world is going to be like 500 years from now? Who in 1511 could have even had a vague notion of how things would be in 2011? Though I vehemently disagree with the ‘womenpriest’ agenda on theological grounds, on moral grounds, if the world continues on in such a secular humanist and otherwise progressivist course I suppose womenpriests are certainly conceivable, though I’d argue that by that point in time most likely priests of any kind would probably be illegal or empty apparatchiks of a 1984 or a Brave New World-esque state. One thing I have been mulling over lately is the paradigm spouted by progressives and modernists that ‘the future will be a better place’. I am not sure at all it will be a better place, in fact, from what I am seeing now, I can reasonably conclude that the future will be an unbelievably depraved nightmare, a debauched horror that I am grateful to God I can not fully conceive. EF or OF styles of the Mass aside, I think that regardless of differences we may be sure the future will see a continuing attack against orthodoxy in all its forms.

Of course there is always the other side of the coin (something I am now seriously thinking a possibility) and that is that the whole evil paradigm of the secular humanists…with rampant abortion, an open homosexual agenda, corruption of the youth, planet or ‘Gaia’ worship, willfull mutating of the masculine/feminine, general totalitarianism, vile hatred of Christian practice and morality…will come crashing down around them, much as the lights went out at the end of the Roman Empire. Now, using this logic, VII will allow the Church to spread mightily once again, this time adapting far beyond Europe because the roots are already in place and the seeds sown. This will, hopefully, be a second Age of Faith (but a global once) where the Church may guide a continually falling humanity towards Christ because all other ideologies and heresies shall have collapsed, mostly.

Its far fetched of course (as is the question posed in the OP) but there is a strong chance in this situation that the Second Vatican Council will be the tool the Lord used to bring the Catholic Faith over the world – in a big way. We can hope, can’t we?
 
Now, using this logic, VII will allow the Church to spread mightily once again, this time adapting far beyond Europe because the roots are already in place and the seeds sown. This will, hopefully, be a second Age of Faith (but a global once) where the Church may guide a continually falling humanity towards Christ because all other ideologies and heresies shall have collapsed, mostly.

Its far fetched of course (as is the question posed in the OP) but there is a strong chance in this situation that the Second Vatican Council will be the tool the Lord used to bring the Catholic Faith over the world – in a big way. We can hope, can’t we?
But it can also be argued that with its attempt at ecumenism, the Second Vatican Council could have been used to promote Protestant denominations and other faiths as well, thereby eliminating any future needs for councils solely for the Catholic Church. After all, everyone can be in some, even remote, union with the Pope and the bishops, no?
 
I’m still thinking that perhaps the loss of Catholic identity is the real culprit here.
The idea of the aggiornamento was to replace the Catholic identity with Christian identity, the understanding that not the words, but the trust in God and the unity of the followers of Jesus Christ is what we need.

The enemy makes everything to prevent this unity. The enemy wants us to hate the Muslims as terrorist, hate the Protestants as heretics, even among Catholics hate the NO people. The unity would mean strength to resits the Enemy.

Unfortunately for many people words, what the call TRUTH, and their pride which tells them that they are the TRUE BELIEVERS and everybody else is wrong, prevents this unity.
 
If bishops had this power of delegation, then there would be no limitations for anyone to become priest and conceptually all (of any sex or age) could be priests and celebrate their own Mass. I don’t think this is theologically possible so I will have to disagree with your premise. Even loopholes have limitations.
Well, the Apostolic tradition of an all-male clergy would pose a barrier for those who wish that women could be ordained. I don’t think it can be ignored. If women were allowed to become ordained, I don’t think it would open up to any age. There still would be personal qualifications, as there exist today. 13 year old boys & girls would not be ordained except in exigent circumstances (something on the order of the Black Death).

Something that I keep in mind is that female altar servers and female extraordinary ministers of holy communion are not leaving the liturgical scene anytime soon. Many of their duties are those traditionally done by ordained clergy. If what was meant to be extraordinary becomes the liturgical norm, the theology changes.

The Novus Ordo Mass, where altar girls are used, may suggest the image of Jesus on the Cross surrounded by the holy women. Perhaps in the future Rome will emphasize this association in suggesting a “priesthood of silence” or something to that effect–basically arguing that along with the traditional and much visible priesthood, there has been a silent priesthood of saintly women who, like Mary the Co-Redemptrix, offer to God the Father the perfect sacrifice of Christ. The “do this in remembrance of me”, pointing to his life, death and resurrection, will be seen as a commission not only and primarily to the Apostles in the room of the Last Supper, and the bishops and priests who succeed them, but to the holy women and their spiritual successors: the Samaritan women, Mary and the other women at the cross, women saints throughout the ages, etc. as well. Quotes from the Fathers and the saints which extol these women in relation to Christ’s self-offering, will be used to suggest their importance in the Sacrifice of Christ, and therefore in the sacrifice of the Mass. It will be a fair amount of truth with a twist.

Of course, I myself do not agree with such views; I only put them forward as what I think may happen in the future. I wish things happen otherwise, and the Catholic Church not follow novelties.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top