Opinions of Vatican II Poll

[otjm]

Your Church is an exception not the norm. The Church overall is in decline.

Actually, the Church in North America and Europe is in decline; elsewhere it is growing and even flourishing.

Priests. While the number of priests in the United States more than doubled to 58,000, between 1930 and 1965, since then that number has fallen to 45,000. By 2020, there will be only 31,000 priests left, and more than half of these priests will be over 70.

Actually, there has been speculation for a long time that part of the blip in the statisitcs prior to 65 was in part due to World War 2. It has been fairly well acknowledged that it was an unusual increase historically in the Church. Much of the fall out occured in the 60’s and very early 70’s when so many left to get married (at a time of tremendous social upheaval in society). And as far as 2020, unless you or your prognosticator have a crystal ball and a good polishing rag, it only appears that there will be 31,000 left. There are a number of areas where vocations are increasing, and there has generally been an increase in seeking vocations. Given, however, the status of society in general - materialistic and secularistic, it will be an interesting time.

Seminarians. Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700, a decline of over 90 percent. Two-thirds of the 600 seminaries that were operating in 1965 have now closed.

One needs to keep in mind that part of those numbers included high school seminaries. there has been a further shift in that many, if not most vocations now are coming from post-college graduates, not people entering in high school or college.

Sisters. In 1965, there were 180,000 Catholic nuns. By 2002, that had fallen to 75,000 and the average age of a Catholic nun is today 68. In 1965, there were 104,000 teaching nuns. Today, there are 8,200, a decline of 94 percent since the end of Vatican II.

Again, very few women are entering at the end of high school; many if not most vocations are later in life. Interestingly, the orders that seem to be growing ( and there are orders growing) are those which seem to have a clear understanding of their charism, tend to live in community, and tend to have a clearly defined habit which most if not all members wear. They also tend to be the communities which are true to the Magisterium.

 

[Miserere_Mei]

Decree of First Vatican Council:

“The Holy Spirit was not given to the Successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine; but that
by His help they might protect the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith.”

The Job of the Pope is to MAINTAIN the staus quo on dogmas and dooctrines and to teach nothing new, but to safeguard that which the apostles handed down to us in full; and to expose and explain all that is contained implicitly and explicitly in that teaching. The pope is not POSITIVELY INSPIRED, but NEGATIVELY PROTECTED by virtue of his office.

If we have not heard it proclaimed by the apostolic see in ages past, it should be suspect and rejected.

 

[otjm]

Then one should ask this question: would the freedom to change the liturgy, relaxation of many Church rules, freedom from the guilts of sin, loss of moral leadership, etc. have happened without a council convening in the 60’s? I seriously doubt it. I think there’s more cause and effect involved in your examples as well.

If you seriously doubt it, then I would guess that you are probably well under 40 years old.

Some of the most difficult changes the US went through were starting in the 50s with the Civil Rights movement, and the 60’s - We lost our first war - Korea (it was a tie, but we got trounced); then into the 60’s with the increased nuclear tensions, the Viet Nam war, the Freedom Rights movement in Civil Rights, the radicalization on campuses; the loss of respect for authority viz a viz the political world - an impeached President, the loss of another war, and all of this fueled by a radical change from reading and hearing news to seeing news - what I consider one of the greatest curses to society - TV. News was now reduced to short sound bites, and the net effect wa a dumbing down of the first order to discussion of much of anything.

Oh, and add gasoline to the fire; the Lambeth Conference (Anglican/Episcopalian) in 1930 was the first main-line church to allow birth control in restricted circumstances within the family. By the time Humanae Vitae came out, the Catholic Church wa the only one which said birth control was wrong. And the whip-snap reaction to HV was probably the most influential cause of dissent in the Church, and was likely the most effective cause of the massive disobedience in other areas.

The problem is, for all too many people, this is all nothing but history, that might have been briefly studied at one point. For those of us who lived it, we are aware of how radically the world changed within a decade and a half.

Whatever is going on in society gets mirrored in the Church if for no other reason than that the members of the Church live in that society, and come to Mass with whatever baggage most everyone else has. You may think that fi the Coucnil had not occured, the Church would look like what it looked like in the 50’s or the 40’s; but absolutely nothing else in the world does, and there is no reason to presume that the Church would not have been just as affected by these changes without the Council.

 

[otjm]

Be careful what you say. Canon 7 is from the infallibile Council of Trent Which the Holy Fathers declared was guided by the Holy Spirit.

Canon 7. If anyone says that the** ceremonies,** vestments, and **outward signs **which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety,[26] let him be anathema.

CHAPTER V
THE CEREMONIES AND RITES OF THE MASS
And since the nature of man is such that he cannot without external means be raised easily to meditation on divine things, holy mother Church has instituted certain rites, namely, that some things in the mass be pronounced in a low tone and others in a louder tone. She has likewise, in accordance with apostolic discipline and tradition, made use of ceremonies,[15] such as mystical blessings, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind, whereby both the majesty of so great a sacrifice might be emphasized and the minds of the faithful excited by those visible signs of religion and piety to the contemplation of those most sublime things which are hidden in this sacrifice.

And be careful how you read something written 500 years ago; the Church simply doesn’t go around issuing anathemas like candy. Much of his statement was couched in the language of the day.

Many have tried to drag out the statement from Trent concerning changes to the liturgy. Conveniently, they manage to forget that the liturgy of the Mass was changed a number of times by subsequent popes.

 

[otjm]

It’s really hard to see how that could be when you had a Pope John XXIII, who convened the council having one agenda, and those he called to the council, bringing in their own. It seems as if you had battle lines already drawn before it even started. At least all the literature I’ve read on the subject at least implies that.

And it took how long for a Pope to realize that the “smoke of Satan” had entered the Church? Doesn’t sound like one would want to tie the Holy Spirit to that.

So you are saying that because someone had an agenda, or that there may have been several agendas, that that means that the Council was not the work of the Holy Spirit? I was in school at that time, and the pope had asked for prayers for guidance; we prayed to the Holy spirit every day for guidance for the Council. And I seriously doubt that we were alone…

 

[otjm]

ME. I feel like I am starting to see between the lines of this…this kind of vatican doublespeak. I feel lost, like I am hearing the voice of the condemned opinions of the moderninsts speaking through the church…it’s unsettling…

I fail to hear what you seem to hear. Perhaps you could be specific?

 

[otjm]

If these people continue in their arrogance to dare to criticize the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as Codified by the council of Trent, after being shown the infallible canons and decrees, there can be no other conclusion that they are manifest heretics, as the Church teaches.

I haven’t seen anyone who is arrogant, and I havne’t particularly seen anyone criticizing anything that wasn’t capable of being changed - such as the use of Latin throughout the entire Mass. The changes to the Mass by the Council of Trent were done at the time because they seemed appropriate to the time and issue of the time. If you are saying that whatever was set at Trent was unchangeable, then you are 1) out of sync with the Church, and then 2) ignoring the last 500 years of history fo the Church, as well as the first 1500.

And as far as heresey, heresy only applies to doctrinal issues. The rubrics of the Mass are not doctrinal, they are regulatory, and as regulatory, they are as much capable of being changed as they were then; the Mass was being said before Trent, and Trent regularized how it was said. Furthermore, Trent did not codify the rubrics absolutely, as there condtiued to lawully exist after Trent several other Masses in the Roman rite.

 

[gorman64]

Pascendi is not Ex Cathedra. Ex Cathedra is a declaration of doctrine; and there have only been two times in the Church’s history that a pope has spoken Ex Cathedra - the declaration fot he dctrine of the Assumption, and the declaration of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Dear otjm,

I’m afraid you don’t know what you’re talking about here. Can you provide a theological source for this nonsense. It is just that…nonsense. I can prove it to you as well.

As to “religion should also change?” one needs to define what one means by religion, and by change. at any given time the Church can emphasize one aspect of the faith and not another; in fact, can emphasize one aspect to the point where another aspect may seem ignored, or may even be misuderstood to not exist or have changed. at another time in history, andother aspect can be emphasized.

Can you provide a source for this idea as well…where did you learn this?

For example, at one point in the history of the /Church, the Church held that one could only go to Confession/Reconcilliation once in one’s lifetime. That changed - and it could reasonbly be said that when it id, “religion” changed.

I don’t know what you’re referring to here…but yes, disciplines can change…but the doctrinal portion of that discipline cannot change.

So should “religion” change? Yes, if you mean how it is practiced, as the practice can be historically related and as history changes, the practice can change.

Here, you’re saying the same thing…disciplines can change…certain doctrines cannot change.

Should “religion” change? If by that you mean the doctrines of the Church, the Church’s position is that doctrines cannot change; but it is also the positon of the Church that our understanding, and the nuances of the doctrine cna change if for no other reason than the Church has had more time to reflect on the matter, both from Scripture and Tradition, and our understanding can grow and be better defined. But the doctrine itself does not change.

This is false. What is your source for this?

In short, your question can be answered either way, depending on how you are defining the term.

And you, my friend, have defined none of your terms nor provided any sources for your ideas.

And it causes a tremendous amount of confusion when two people of good will are trying to talk about something, but dont’ agree on the definition fo the terms they are using.

Well, let’s do that then…provide your sources so we can see them.

Gorman

 

[otjm]

They also confused the laity.

Actually, most of the laity was not confused by Vatican or the implementation shortly thereafter, as it took time for the dissent which started with HV to spread. Most of the laity during and after V2, and for some time, still took the position of “pray, pay and obey”; the changes happened over time and it was over time that the confsusion started. Much of that confusion started not because of V2 or its documents, but because of changes to catechesis of children, which removed doctines as central to teaching the faith, and wnet off to “faith experiences” and the subsequent la la that occured. That didn’t really get into ger until the 70’s, a decade after V2.

Once the disciplines, especially of the Mass changed, people thought everything was up for grabs. That is why people reacted so badly to Humanae Vitae.

Actully, no. People reacted to HV the way they did becasue a) the Pill had been around prior to V2 and the Church had not taken a postion officially on it; because it acted differently than a diaphragm or a condom, but rather regulated the woman’s cycle, it was seen by very many in the Church as different and acceptable. By the time HV came out (and after the majority postion of the Commission had been leaked) the percentage of women Catholics using the Pill was about the same as the rest of society, and both numbers were climing rapidly.

If it had been promulgated in 1963, it would have seemd obvious to Catholics. But, by 1968, the “liberals” had convinced the people that the Church would change on contraception too, in the “spirit of VII”.

Hogwash. The “liberals” had nothing to do with that; there were many good and holy priests, bishops and theologians who felt with the information they had that the Pill was acceptible because it appeared so different from the other means of contraception. and that was the same in 1963. To say that the people in the Church who felt that the Pill was acceptible were “liberals” is simply to tag people whom you disagree with. Acceptance was coming from across the board.

 

[otjm]

This is wrong. The Church’s doctrine and theology does not “evolve.” It is immutable and timeless as it has been handed down, miraculously, from the time of the apostles. The biggest mistake is to think that the Church needs to “change with the times.”

and if you study the history of the Church, you will note that it has changed with the times throughout its history. The problem you are having is that you want to define the Church as its doctrine, and others are referring to practice. Doctrine doesn’t change, but our understanding of it can change and grow. Discipline - the rules and the regulations, and practice does change and has done so throughout the history of the Church.

But really, the council was the one pointing away from the traditional teachings of the Church, not Archbishop Lefevbre and the SSPX. The SSPX has only maintained the status quo, as it were, of the Church as it was from all time until the changes of VII, which was only a “pastoral” council and not an infallible one.

No, it was not pointing away from the traditional teachings of the Church, as the Church didn’t have a whole lot of teachings on some of the issues brought up in V2. Further, you are confusing Tradition with tradition (small t). It was tradition (but not Tradition) that the Church said Mass in Latin (and Greek and Hebrew - Kyrie and Sabaoth). It was not, however, an absolute Tradition. In fact the earliest Church said Mass in the vernacular, primarily in Greek (which was the language that much of the New Testament was written in).

Further, so what if the Council wasn’t infallible? The Council does not have to be infallible to deal with non-infallible issues in the Church, of which there are many. You keep coming back to this as if it were some mantra. The Church is infallible in issues of doctrine and morals; all else is by choice; come of the choices are wise and some not, but they are not matters of faith.

 

[gorman64]

Actually, most of the laity was not confused by Vatican or the implementation shortly thereafter, as it took time for the dissent which started with HV to spread. Most of the laity during and after V2, and for some time, still took the position of “pray, pay and obey”; the changes happened over time and it was over time that the confsusion started. Much of that confusion started not because of V2 or its documents, but because of changes to catechesis of children, which removed doctines as central to teaching the faith, and wnet off to “faith experiences” and the subsequent la la that occured. That didn’t really get into ger until the 70’s, a decade after V2. Actully, no. People reacted to HV the way they did becasue a) the Pill had been around prior to V2 and the Church had not taken a postion officially on it; because it acted differently than a diaphragm or a condom, but rather regulated the woman’s cycle, it was seen by very many in the Church as different and acceptable. By the time HV came out (and after the majority postion of the Commission had been leaked) the percentage of women Catholics using the Pill was about the same as the rest of society, and both numbers were climing rapidly. Hogwash. The “liberals” had nothing to do with that; there were many good and holy priests, bishops and theologians who felt with the information they had that the Pill was acceptible because it appeared so different from the other means of contraception. and that was the same in 1963. To say that the people in the Church who felt that the Pill was acceptible were “liberals” is simply to tag people whom you disagree with. Acceptance was coming from across the board.

Dear otjm,

Both artificial birth control and abortion were condemned in Casti Connubii, Pope Pius XI, Dec 31, 1930. These condemnations are contained in Denzinger 2239 thru 2244. Denzinger is of course, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, 1954

This should be enough for any Catholic.

I can provide the text from Casti Connubii, which comprises Denzinger 2239 thru 2244, under the heading “The Abuse of Matrimony”…do you want to see it? Or do you only like your own opinions?

Gorman

 

[otjm]

I answered that I don’t like VII, but truthfully, depending on exactly what we’re talking about, I could answer with any of the options.

I disagree completely that the Church should have to change to keep up with modern times. The Church isn’t out of step with us, we’re out of step with the Church. Certainly as technology changes the Church will be faced with new issue (like IVF and cloning), but the previous teachings of the Church will always be able to handle and explain what comes.

What came of VII doesn’t seem like much more than a watering down of Church teachings to try and appease people who found things too difficult or antiquated before. Mantillas are old fashioned, so get rid of them, receiving on the tongue is too weird so just take it in the hand, fasting and abstinence is too hard so let’s make it as easy as possible, etc etc.

I like some of the changes, using vernacular (though I want a return to more Latin usage in the Mass) and more participation from congregation.

Unless you have made a study of how the Church was reacting to the world prior to Vatican 2, I don’;t think you have sufficient information to make a decision of whether or not it needed to change.

As a matter of fact, John Paul 2 and Benedict 16th were both very involved in the formation of some of the documents of V2, and both had been involved in discussions of the need for changed in the Church prior to the Council. And both of them have said repeatedly that Vatican 2 was important, and the implementation fo the Council’s documents is important to the Church today.

Perhaps you disagree with one or both Popes. They felt Vatican 2 was necessary and the changes important to the Church. I am certainly willing to listen to two men as brilliant as these two; are you? Or do you prefer to listen to Ottaviani and Lefbrve, one who strongly opposed the work of the council and the other who later disagreed with not just the implementation, but the Council itself?

 

[gorman64]

Further, so what if the Council wasn’t infallible? The Council does not have to be infallible to deal with non-infallible issues in the Church, of which there are many. You keep coming back to this as if it were some mantra. The Church is infallible in issues of doctrine and morals; all else is by choice; come of the choices are wise and some not, but they are not matters of faith.

Dear otjm,

You just contradicted yourself…which doesn’t surprise me.

Faith and morals. Then you say as long as it’s not a matter of Faith. Have you ever read a dogmatic theology manual? They will explain all of this in very clear terms…why don’t you learn something before you start “teaching” others. You don’t have any idea what you’re talking about once again.

Gorman

 

[otjm]

His book is full of interviews with the council Fathers at the time of the Council. He unknowingly shows how a group of liberal priests and theologians took over the council to advance their agenda.

that is a good start as to where we disagree. You use the term “liberal”. Pope John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 were both progressives during V2. If you wish to label them “liberals”, then we will disagree.

To use the term “liberal” one first has to define two things: 1) where one stands; and 2) what you call people who are true to the Magisterium.

The first needs to be defined, because there are some who would call Ottaviani a liberal, and others who would call Ratzinger a conservative.

My position is that I am true to the Magisterium. That does not provide me with a label of “liberal” for either Ratzinger or Wojtila.

It also reveals that the Novus Ordo was well formulated before the council even began.

Well of course it did. I would assume anyone who has studied Church history of the last century would have figured that part out.

Do you see hope for ecumenism now, or do you think Dominus Iesus has been a major setback?

Having followed the ecumenical work that has been done over the last 40 years, in particular with the Anglican/Epsicopalian, Lutheran, and Orthodox dialogues, I most certainly see hope for ecumenism. I see further hope for ecumenism in the work that is done between the Catholic Church and the evangelical and funadamentalist churchs which have stood shoulder to shoulder with the Church in opposing abortion; and the ecumenical work that has been done with Islam in opposing the work of the United Nations to force abortion and contraception on third world countries. I follow the official ecumenical work of the Church, which doesn’t get much press, but is where the true ecumenical work will be done.

I do not consider Kung to be a voice of the Church. Nor do I consider his comments as where the Church should head or hwo the work of ecumenism should be done.

You probably agree with him on intercommunion. I suspect you are more liberal than you want to admit.

:extrahappy: Well, since you don’t know me, I’ll take that as your sense of humor.

Again, I don’t like the terms “conservative” and “liberal” as they are ususally used to indicate that the person doesn’t like whomever they are labeling. Further, depending on where you stand, the same person can be labeled either way. I have friends who think I am somewhat to the left of Trotsky; and others who are certain I am to the right of Attila the Hun. That, you should have figured out by now, puts me somewhere in the middle.

I think that the Church can legitimately be criticized; anyone who has read any honest history of the Church should be able to say the same. There have been periods in the history where the choices, or lack of them, have brought disgrace and dissention.

I can distinguish between what the Church says officially, and what comes out of the mouth of people who profess to be Catholic. At times one matches the other; other times, there is dissonance. And where there is dissonance, I follow the Church.

And the bottom line is that Benedict 16th and Kung have maintained a friendship over the decades. Kung was censured. But the Pope still treats him with more dignity than some people in this forum. I find that highly interesting.

 

[otjm]

Dear stmaria,

And wouldn’t the “conservative” Catholic reply, “He is not an approved teacher…he has been stripped of any connection with the official Teaching Apostolate…why are you quoting him?”

From the referenced article:

What exactly is your point with the Hans Kung stuff anyway?

Gorman

She was taking a shot at me, methinks.

 

[gorman64]

She was taking a shot at me, methinks.

Well, you are an easy target. I think she hit you.

 

[otjm]

he was one of the theologians responsible for some of the VII documents. Don’t you find it odd that Hans Kung who denies papal infallibility among other things is still a priest in good standing and was never excommunicated yet Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated within 72 hours?

No, I don’t find that odd, and neither would anyone who really understood how the Church has treated theologians over the years. Most people don’t seem to understand that the Church simply doesn’t excommunicate anyone and everyone who disagrees wtih it, and to those who insist that it does, they are not following the mind of the Church. Prior to Vatican 2, a number of theologians were silenced. The current pope, and the previous one, knew the people who were, and knew that some of those silenced were faithful to the Church and the Magisterium, and were silenced not because their work was wrong, but because it displeased someone in the Holy Office (now known as the Congregation for the Faith).

Lefebvre was not excommunicated for his personal opinions. He was excommunicated for a direct violation of Canon Law, for which he was warned in advance and for which he promised not to violate - an then turned around and violated.

Kung accepted his censure.

 

[gorman64]

And the bottom line is that Benedict 16th and Kung have maintained a friendship over the decades. Kung was censured. But the Pope still treats him with more dignity than some people in this forum. I find that highly interesting.

Kung is a manifest heretic and is outside the Church by the fact of his heresy. Strange bedfellows…but that doesn’t bother you progressives now does it?

 

[gorman64]

No, I don’t find that odd, and neither would anyone who really understood how the Church has treated theologians over the years. Most people don’t seem to understand that the Church simply doesn’t excommunicate anyone and everyone who disagrees wtih it, and to those who insist that it does, they are not following the mind of the Church. Prior to Vatican 2, a number of theologians were silenced. The current pope, and the previous one, knew the people who were, and knew that some of those silenced were faithful to the Church and the Magisterium, and were silenced not because their work was wrong, but because it displeased someone in the Holy Office (now known as the Congregation for the Faith).

Lefebvre was not excommunicated for his personal opinions. He was excommunicated for a direct violation of Canon Law, for which he was warned in advance and for which he promised not to violate - an then turned around and violated.

Kung accepted his censure.

Dear otjm,

Papal infallibility is a dogma…it is de fide…the censure for denial of a dogma is heresy and that places one outside the Church…you say theology is a hobby of yours…have you ever read a theology manual that classifies these censures?

Gorman

 

[otjm]

Dear otjm,

I’m afraid you don’t know what you’re talking about here. Can you provide a theological source for this nonsense. It is just that…nonsense. I can prove it to you as well.

that is so well established in the Church as to not even be arguable. Some individuals have argued otherwise; but then, Hans Kung ahs argued otherwise too.

Can you provide a source for this idea as well…where did you learn this?/QUOTE]any reliable history of the Church will show this. It isn’t something new.
gorman64;2356938:

I don’t know what you’re referring to here…but yes, disciplines can change…but the doctrinal portion of that discipline cannot change.

And your point?

This is false. What is your source for this?

try any accepted manual of doctrinal theology written before Vatican 2, for starters; and any history of doctrine.

And you, my friend, have defined none of your terms nor provided any sources for your ideas.

I am not the one who needed to define terms, as I was responding to another poster. They were the one who asked “should religion change”. I suggested that undless they defined the term “religion” it was answerable either way.

If they define religion as doctrinal information, then no, it should not change. If they define religion as practice, then a simple reading of Church history will show that it has changed. The practice of the Sacrament of Reconcilliation/Confession has changed over the years as an example. My suggestion was that they were asking a question that could not be answered the way it was asked.