misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II

[malphono]

Ok I picked two bad examples in my point! Are you saying that this gift from the Holy Spirit was not needed by the Apostles, or just pointing out my example was bad.

It was strictly the examples. As far as the vernacular business goes, suffice it to say I’m part of the other camp.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Yes, the two things do seem to go hand-in-hand. My take is that the hijackers used the “liberating times” to further their own agenda and pervert the Council. Which, of course, gives the “spitit of Vatican II” which essentially has nothing whatsoever to do with that Council.

I think I can agree with you on that.

The “bad thing” about those it is that it caused scandal to the faithful. And the repercussions are still being felt.

The “bad thing” I see is those who use this with their agenda to prove that Vatican II was a bad thing.

 

[Hadrianus]

I don’t know much about Voris, but he is citing a Catholic bishop who is the one asking for the new syllabus. In the end it is up to the Pope, or a future council to give a definitive interpretation of Vatican II documents. 40 years after the council there is far too much confusion about its meaning.

 

[CradleCath]

=ByzCath;7481136]

Can you provide any proof that it was either Vatican II or the Ordinary Form of the Mass that caused these priests and religious to leave?

The statistics alone can prove it, but the "Novus Ordo only people, the Catholics so caught up in their "MINISTRIES"whether it be EEM., oblate, secular Franciscan, Benedictine, Dominican, lector, Liturgist, RICA director or any of those UP-FRONT positions won’t accept proof. However, I’ll do it one more time, if for no other reason than to watch the absolute REFUSAL to see what has happened:

the following statistics are originally from Kenneth Jones’ Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: I could give you the same statistics from CARA, a graph from PEWRESERCH, ETC., etc. but I’ve found it’s pretty much a waste of time.

Priests. After skyrocketing from about 27,000 in 1930 to 58,000 in 1965, the number of priests in the United States dropped to 45,000 in 2002 & many of them are retired, most will soon retire. By 2020, there will be about 31,000 priests–and only **15,000 will be under the age of 70. Right now there are more priests aged 80 to 84 than there are aged 30 to 34. **Ordinations. In 1965 there were 1,575 ordinations to the priesthood, in 2002 there were 450, a decline of 350 percent. Taking into account ordinations, deaths and departures, **in 1965 there was a net gain of 725 priests. **In 1998, there was a net loss of 810.

Priestless parishes. About 1 percent of parishes, 549, were without a resident priest in 1965. In 2002 there were 2,928 priestless parishes, about 15 percent of U.S. parishes. By 2020, a quarter of all parishes, 4,656, will have no priest.

Seminarians. **Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700–a 90 percent decrease. **Without any students, seminaries across the country have been sold or shuttered. There were 596 seminaries in 1965, and only 200 in 2002.

Sisters. 180,000 sisters were the backbone of the Catholic education and health systems in 1965. In 2002, there were 75,000 sisters, with an average age of 68. By 2020, the number of sisters will drop to 40,000–and of these, only 21,000 will be aged 70 or under. In 1965, 104,000 sisters were teaching, while in 2002 there were only 8,200 teachers.

Brothers. The number of professed brothers decreased from about 12,000 in 1965 to 5,700 in 2002, with a further drop to 3,100 projected for 2020.

Religious Orders. The religious orders will soon be virtually non-existent in the United States**. For example, in 1965 there were 5,277 Jesuit priests and 3,559 seminarians;** in 2000 there were 3,172 priests and 38 seminarians. There were 2,534 OFM Franciscan priests and 2,251 seminarians in 1965; in 2000 there were 1,492 priests and 60 seminarians. There were 2,434 Christian Brothers in 1965 and 912 seminarians; in 2000 there were 959 Brothers and 7 seminarians. There were 1,148 Redemptorist priests in 1965 and 1,128 seminarians; in 2000 there were 349 priests and 24 seminarians. Every major religious order in the United States mirrors these statistics.

High Schools. Between 1965 and 2002 the number of diocesan high schools fell from 1,566 to 786. At the same time the number of students dropped from almost 700,000 to 386,000.

Parochial Grade Schools. There were 10,503 parochial grade schools in 1965 and 6,623 in 2002. The number of students went from 4.5 million to 1.9 million.

Sacramental Life. In 1965 there were 1.3 million infant baptisms; in 2002 there were 1 million. (In the same period the number of Catholics in the United States rose from 45 million to 65 million.) In 1965 there were 126,000 adult baptisms-----converts-----in 2002 there were 80,000. In 1965 there were 352,000 Catholic marriages, in 2002 there were 256,000. In 1965 there were 338 annulments, in 2002 there were 50,000.

Mass attendance. A 1958 Gallup poll reported that 74 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1958. A 1994 University of Notre Dame study found that the attendance rate was 26.6 percent. A more recent study by Fordham University professor James Lothian concluded that 65 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1965, while the rate dropped to 25 percent in 2000.

This is a typical post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy that many fall into.

The thing about those “post hoc ergo propter hoc”…after this, therefore **because **of this…they’re so often true.

Think about it…
****before Christ’s Sacrifice, the world was doomed.
****after Christ the world was given the opportunity to live forever.
******BECAUSE **of Christ’s Sacrifice, we are saved.

 

[CradleCath]

I yearn for “traditional times”, too. Times when there were would be long lines every Saturday afternoon for confession, times when Mass would be so crowded on Sunday that you could barely get in. Times when people would never think of talking unnecessarily in Church, and all children older than 2 or 3 would sit quietly during Mass without toys. Times when not everyone would receive Communion because they recognized sin for what it was and didn’t think of communion as their “right.” I long for times people would genuflect or bow every time they passed in front of the Tabernacle. I long for times when people would have never thought of such things as clown Masses or puppet Masses.

In short, I yearn for “traditional times” when people knew who they were and who God was, and believed that salvation was a gift, not a right.

I hear you!!!

As a business person who trained LOTS of people & who made myself available for continuing training…I’d ask the 2-3 year people who were having problems to…“GO BACK to the time when their sales were sky-rocketing & see what they were doing then.” 90% of the time, it brought them right back to the top. If one won’t learn from their mistakes, history is bound to repeat itself.

 

[Timothy17]

I don’t know much about Voris, but he is citing a Catholic bishop who is the one asking for the new syllabus. In the end it is up to the Pope, or a future council to give a definitive interpretation of Vatican II documents. 40 years after the council there is far too much confusion about its meaning.

I have to agree.

 

[Hadrianus]

When looking at the decline of any institution it is intellectually more rigorous to look at the institution itself first and then go on to extrinsic factors. Those who refuse to consider that Catholicism largely collapsed from a crisis of confidence insist on the social changes in society, but these changes are not as great as is they are often said to be.

The real problem is that the identity of priests and religious was damaged by the radical nature of the changes made to the liturgy and clerical life from the mid 1960’s onwards.
The 90% decline in the number of seminarians is far too great to be attributed to societal change alone and reflects a general lack of respect for the priesthood itself…
In dioceses and orders where solid doctrine is taught and a proper priestly life is being restored a definite revival is taking place.

 

[edwest2]

Too much confusion. That’s not a helpful answer.

harvestingthefruit.com/

There are still people around from Vatican II.

Peace,
Ed

 

[CradleCath]

There is a reason that isn’t spoken of often as to the reason for men to leave the priesthood. Many were in formation are starting at the time of the council. There was a movement at the time to allow preist to marry and this was give as an insentive. When JPII came along that idea for the time was ended. There was a young preist I kinew in the lat 70’s who had entered the priesthood on that promise. When it was clear it wouldn’t happen he left and was released from his vows. It could be that part of the reason of the exodus

For some of my friends who entered the Seminary during the early
70’s, the ACTIVE homosexual subculture which was used as part of the “opening up the windows…spirit of Vatican II” movement was their reason for leaving.

culturewars.com/2002/may02_ggm.html

 

[edwest2]

Additional information about the number of Catholics and priests:

napavalleyregister.com/news/opinion/readers/article_7735c6d6-7c12-11df-9542-001cc4c002e0.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Gregory_I]

Would it be a misapplication of Vatican II to take what it said dogmatically when it was not intended to be? NOt that it’s invalid or anything, it just did not issue any dogmas.

A thing can be misapplied by excess or defect, does this seem like excess, to take a pastoral council as dogmatic?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

When looking at the decline of any institution it is intellectually more rigorous to look at the institution itself first and then go on to extrinsic factors. Those who refuse to consider that Catholicism largely collapsed from a crisis of confidence insist on the social changes in society, but these changes are not as great as is they are often said to be.

The real problem is that the identity of priests and religious was damaged by the radical nature of the changes made to the liturgy and clerical life from the mid 1960’s onwards.
The 90% decline in the number of seminarians is far too great to be attributed to societal change alone and reflects a general lack of respect for the priesthood itself…
In dioceses and orders where solid doctrine is taught and a proper priestly life is being restored a definite revival is taking place.

Nice opinion, but that is just what it is.

We will never be able to definitively answer this one.

From what I have seen and the stories I have from the older priests and brothers in my Order I have to disagree with you on this one.

Guess this is a case where we will have to agree to disagree and move on.

 

[JReducation]

I’m not about to argue with numbers, but there are some details in this post that need correcting. The red is mine. It just helps me identify certain points. Please be patient.

The statistics alone can prove it, but the "Novus Ordo only people, the Catholics so caught up in their "MINISTRIES"whether it be EEM., oblate, secular Franciscan, Benedictine, Dominican, lector, Liturgist, RICA director or any of those UP-FRONT positions won’t accept proof.

Secular Franciscans are not a ministry. They are a canonical order of Pontifical Right just like the Jesuits, Carmelites, Salesians and other Franciscans.

The Lay Dominicans are not a ministry. They are a branch of the Order of Preachers.

The Oblates are not a ministry. Every Oblate is a professed Benedictine.

Priests. After skyrocketing from about 27,000 in 1930 to 58,000 in 1965,

It is a known fact that the number of men entering the seminary rises and falls in waves. Currently the number of men entering the seminary in the USA is not much lower than it was by the end of the 1800s. There seems to be a pattern that the number of men entering the seminary rises in times of crisis. The greatest spikes have been during the Middle Ages, the Protestant Reformation, the French Revolution, during the two World Wars.

We’re not exactly sure if there is a correlation or if it’s just a coincidence. There is no scientific way of explaining it. Nor is there a scientific way of connecting the decrease in numbers with Vatican II. There seems to be a greater correlation with a changing world in which Vatican II took place. That’s only speculation on the part of sociologists and anthropologists.

Sisters. 180,000 sisters were the backbone of the Catholic education and health systems in 1965. In 2002, there were 75,000 sisters, with an average age of 68. By 2020, the number of sisters will drop to 40,000–and of these, only 21,000 will be aged 70 or under. In 1965, 104,000 sisters were teaching, while in 2002 there were only 8,200 teachers.

It is true that the number of sisters decreased. But we have to understand some of the reasons why this happened. The biggest reason was the command of Vatican II to return to the roots. Sisters tried to return to the vision and mission of their founders. Unfortunately, they were greatly influenced by the Women’s Movement. The reforms became blurred.

You had sisters who left because they did not want to get out of their comfort zone, the Catholic school, which was not what their founders wanted. Others left because they became involved in the Women’s Movement and all of the issues with authority came to the surfface. Many left, because the roots of their community was not where they wanted to be. These communities had deviated so much that the women who entered them in the 1940s and 50s were really entering communities that were very different from the original. When the community went back to the original paradigm, some women felt out of place. These things have nothing to do with misinterpreations of Vatican II.

Brothers. The number of professed brothers decreased from about 12,000 in 1965 to 5,700 in 2002, with a further drop to 3,100 projected for 2020.

This did happen. But there were two things that were happening at the same time. First, like the siters, the brothers were told to return to their roots. Like the siters, they did not like those roots. That’s one group that left. For others returning to their roots meant leaving the American school where most of them taught and going to work in poor urban areas or in mission territories, which is where their founders wanted them in the first place. This was a much harder life than what they had in their cozy middle class Catholic schools. Many could not tolerate the asceticism required and they left. The laity did not help either. The laity developed a clerical mentality. When many of these brothers from the different religious communities went back into pastoral care, which they were founded to do, the laity rejected their services because they were not priests.

In my own community we had brothers who were treated very badly and rejected by the laity when they took over parishes as administrators, took over religious houses as superiors, tookd over retreat centers as retreat masters and spiritual directors. These brothers were very competent theologians, ministers and administrators. But the laity had a single vision for brothers, they were either teachers or house boys for priests. When the Council and later Vita Consacrata told the brothers to revive the vision and mission of the founders, they were given a hard time.

Finally, things are changing. We now have brothers who run parishes, retreat houes, are superiors of houses, run missions and have priests under them and the laity is comfortable with that. But it took almost 40 years to get back to the original vision of the founder where all the friars were equal. That frustrated many brothers and they left. That was not a misapplication of Vatican II.

 

[JReducation]

There were 2,534 OFM Franciscan priests and 2,251 seminarians in 1965; in 2000 there were 1,492 priests and 60 seminarians.

You’re doing exactly what I just described, right here. There is not such thing as a “Franciscan Priest”. There are Franciscan Friars. There are Friars who are priests. We have never had seminarians. We are not diocesans nor secular institutes. We are religious. Our men in formation are called scholastics, student friars or simply professed friars. We do not distinguish between those who are ordained and non ordained. The laity makes that distinction, still, even though we have tried very hard to change that image.

In addition, our resolution, beginning in the early 1980s was to ordain less men, because we had a surplus of priests. We had become clericalized in an attempt to help bishops in mission fields, such as the Americas. There was a command from the Holy See itself to save the entire Franciscan family from becoming an order of priests. Otherwise, we would be like the Dominicans or the Carmelites, a clerical institute. This is not the model that Francis had in mind. In our rule, there is no mention of two kinds of friars.

Many men left when they were told that they had to give up parishes and move back into community living. Others left when they were removed from being pastors and assigned to running soup kitchens. Other left, because they were told to turn in their car keys and their money. Others left because they were told that they could not longer place the parish schedule ahead of community functions. For these men, these things were very hard. They had entered the Franciscan family during the 20th century, a time when the Franciscan family had deviated so much from the original vision of St. Francis, that there was no difference between a Franciscan and a Dominican, except in the habit. Sometimes there was no difference between a Franciscan and a Diocesan priest. They had subjugated the non ordained and turned them into house boys.

The Council demanded that the rule be applied as it was written. The Rule spoke of one class of brothers with the same rights and duties. For some of the ordained, the very idea of having a non-cleric superior was offensive to them. It was demeaning. They left. Other men decided not to enter, because they want to be clerics and live in a clerical community. There is nothing wrong with that. I point people toward the Dominicans and the Carmelites quite often, when they say that they want to be in a clerical community.

If they want a fraternal community, where you can be ordained or not, but you are still a valuable and beloved member, then the Franciscan family may be for you. These things had nothing to do with misapplications of Vatican II. This was a result of trying to correct a deviation that took place before Vatican II. It began in the 1600s and by 1900 it was not the same order. Many reformers tried to get back to the original, but did not have the power of the Holy See behind them. Finally, it was Paul VI, in 1978 who commanded the return to the original structure and realtionship between the friars. Many men left and many others did not join, because this was not the way of life that they were called to live. That’s OK. We don’t want men and women joining communities to live miserable lives.

High Schools. Between 1965 and 2002 the number of diocesan high schools fell from 1,566 to 786. At the same time the number of students dropped from almost 700,000 to 386,000.

Parochial Grade Schools. There were 10,503 parochial grade schools in 1965 and 6,623 in 2002. The number of students went from 4.5 million to 1.9 million.

Many schools closed because of financial problems. They could not keep up with the public schools and the growing number of secular schools that provide high tech education. That was not the Council’s fault. The fact is that most Catholic schools were middle class. The middle class was best served by public schools. The upper classes sent their children to high tech private schools that we did not have.

Sacramental Life. In 1965 there were 1.3 million infant baptisms; in 2002 there were 1 million. (In the same period the number of Catholics in the United States rose from 45 million to 65 million.) In 1965 there were 126,000 adult baptisms-----converts-----in 2002 there were 80,000. In 1965 there were 352,000 Catholic marriages, in 2002 there were 256,000. In 1965 there were 338 annulments, in 2002 there were 50,000.

Mass attendance. A 1958 Gallup poll reported that 74 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1958. A 1994 University of Notre Dame study found that the attendance rate was 26.6 percent. A more recent study by Fordham University professor James Lothian concluded that 65 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1965, while the rate dropped to 25 percent in 2000.

This is true. However, secularism in the developed nations took hold as a result of many social phenomena, not just Vatican II.

We cannot place the whole burden on one single council. That hypothesis is not sustainable.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JRPO]

I was kind of hoping that this thread would be more about -

the growing movement in influential Church circles to end the madness and get back to the basics of the faith. But one thing is absolutely certain. What happened to the Church after Vatican II has been destructive of the Faith for tens of millions of souls … perhaps hundreds of millions if you add up all the souls over the 45 years or so.
A great confrontation is in the offing between those who recognize the destruction and
are intent of correcting the disaster and those who like things the way they are and are
hell-bent (pun intended) of keeping them this way. Sooner of later … we are all going to
have to choose.

 

[laszlo]

The statistics alone can prove it

Statistics can prove thing only about repeatable events. Increased influence increased effect, decreased influence decreased effect, no influence no effect.

Before Vatican II (no influence from the council) about one quarter of the priests left the service. About half of them later returned to the Church the other half died excommunicated. This one quadrant seems to be stabilized now too. So there must be other reasons too

Hundred years ago being priest meant to be one of the leaders of the town. Fifty years ago (still before the council) this diminished to general approval and job security. Now people spit on the priest and if a hungry lawyer want to accuse him with pedophilia, the law is in the side of the accuser w/o any responsibility, the priest is loosing everything

Vatican II wanted to save as much in this secularized Church as possible. It made a good job. In the US 25 percent of Catholics attends Masses regularly, the Catholic schools are working for full capacity despite the required double payment (taxes and tuition) by the states, the number of the Catholics grows with the population; and except for the extremes the Church is still one.

If you want statistics collect the facts for the traditionalist, or for the extreme liberals. Less than one percent is attracted by both side; and what is more important, there is no unity neither among the traditionalist (those not in communion with Rome),nor among the extreme liberals.

 

[ProVobis]

Many schools closed because of financial problems. They could not keep up with the public schools and the growing number of secular schools that provide high tech education. That was not the Council’s fault. The fact is that most Catholic schools were middle class. The middle class was best served by public schools. The upper classes sent their children to high tech private schools that we did not have.

This is very true. As the salaries and benefits of teaching no-tuition public schools were going up, with no subsidies or vouchers the U.S. Catholic schools were becoming quickly disadvantaged. However, there was already a perceived feeling in the air during my Catholic high school days (1961-1965) that the ongoing council would be changing the way we should all be thinking (Latin requirement was being dropped and religion classes were getting confusing, I almost flunked senior year Apologetics) and the enrollments were plummetting so fast (even before we read the documents) two high schools in our league were forced to close their doors by 1965. The surviving ones eventually had to consolidate, take on non-Catholics, and even become co-ed, which goes back to the growing feminist movement which you addressed. I would say, if anything, the council didn’t help the religion programs and declining numbers in the Catholic schools, though they may have exacerbated the decline. But then I don’t think the council was called for the purpose of restoring Catholic school enrollments either.

 

[malphono]

It is true that the number of sisters decreased. But we have to understand some of the reasons why this happened. The biggest reason was the command of Vatican II to return to the roots. Sisters tried to return to the vision and mission of their founders. Unfortunately, they were greatly influenced by the Women’s Movement. The reforms became blurred.

You had sisters who left because they did not want to get out of their comfort zone, the Catholic school, which was not what their founders wanted. Others left because they became involved in the Women’s Movement and all of the issues with authority came to the surfface. Many left, because the roots of their community was not where they wanted to be. These communities had deviated so much that the women who entered them in the 1940s and 50s were really entering communities that were very different from the original. When the community went back to the original paradigm, some women felt out of place. These things have nothing to do with misinterpreations of Vatican II.

I have to disagree with that last sentence. If one looks at it, one can, I think, see in the bolded statements in the first paragraph quoted above a clear connection with the misinterpretation of the Council (aka the “spirit of Vatican II”). There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with restoring the founders’ vision, but as you say, it became blurred. The “women’s lib” movement etc were not products (nor even byproducts) of the Council, but the principles of same fit nicely with the agenda of the hijackers who were responsible for the “spirit of Vatican II” which gives us yet another case of the “spirit of Vatican II” run amok.

With the exception of those who joined as part of the 1950s “convent overflow” that I mentioned in a previous post, women were called to, and entered, those communities because of what they were in practice. Was “going back to their roots” supposed to mean that years (in some cases centuries) of organic development within those communities was to be all of a sudden discarded and community life and mission upended? It seems to me the answer is no.

 

[laszlo]

With the exception of those who joined as part of the 1950s “convent overflow” that I mentioned in a previous post, women were called to, and entered, those communities because of what they were in practice. Was “going back to their roots” supposed to mean that years (in some cases centuries) of organic development within those communities was to be all of a sudden discarded and community life and mission upended? It seems to me the answer is no.

Historically the movement of Cluny, St Bernard and the cistercian order, St Teresa and the discalced Carmelites and many other reforms were ‘going back to the roots’ denying the supposed ‘organic development’ of their past. The past is not good, just because it is past.

 

[malphono]

Historically the movement of Cluny, St Bernard and the cistercian order, St Teresa and the discalced Carmelites and many other reforms were ‘going back to the roots’ denying the supposed ‘organic development’ of their past. The past is not good, just because it is past.

Yes, I’m quite familiar with those reforms. The difference (and it a very big difference) there is that those did not deny the organic development nor did they upend observance and mission of the existing Order itself. Rather, they split and formed new observances of the rule.