Pre-Vatican II vs. Post-Vatican II

[ServusChristi]

**The Latin Mass was having trouble before Vatican II which is why they were trying to establish a new liturgy. The end result of that liturgy has been catastrophe. The abuses from it are worse than the abuses that were going on pre-Vatican II. I only hope and pray we can go back to our traditions and re-unite holiness and God to our Church where distruction and desicration has taken place. **

Tradcat…may I ask an opinion of your and those who have cited similiar posts?

In the grand scheme of God’s Plan (instead of man’s), is it possible that there were so many abuses in the Latin mass, that the Vatican II direction was taken by the Holy Spirit, not because a new mass was needed, but so that the Latin mass would be taken ‘to the mat’ as it were, so that the Latin Mass would gain it’s austere and preeminent position once again in the future?

It has been brought up in other message boards, for instance, that the liberal bishops and priests are slowly dying off or retiring, and in their place are more conservative ones who are bringing much of our tradition back, and tightening up the catechetical teaching of our young ones.

So is it possible that Vatican II isn’t necessarily as switching of tracks as much as it is a wake up call to see and value what we have almost lost?

I consider it a miracle that the Latin Mass is still around, what with all the agressiveness of trying to get rid of it by the liberals.

Story

You bring up an excellent point, one which I think many of my fellow traditionalists miss in their aversion to all things Vatican II. Everything happens for a reason. God either allowed the Council to proceed by His permissive will, or He actually willed that it would happen.

Liberalism and modernism were building up in the Church as negative forces long before the Council. That is why the Popes spilled so much ink trying to combat them. The Apostle taught us that everything in the Old Testament is an example for us.

Well, God let Israel follow its sinful inclinations away from Him. People are permitted to pursue evil. I think that Vatican II is being used as God’s instrument of chastisement. All of the liberals and modernists have come out into the open. At some point, God’s judgement will come upon the entire Church and purify her…

 

[ServusChristi]

Remember how the Israelites complained that they were sick of the manna? How they wanted meat? Well, it seems that before Vatican II, liberals were saying, “we are sick of the old way, I hate this stinking manna. Let’s have something new!” Well, God has given us newness until it came out of our nostrils.

Once we go back and decide to interpret Vatican II in light of the whole of Tradition, we will again appreciate Tradition. Perhaps God is on the verge of granting us a true New Springtime. Conservatives and traditionalists, we all want to restore the Church and push forward in the light of the Gospel. Maybe Vatican II is airing out the garbage that was in the Church. The heretics are using the ambiguities in the Council to justify their heresy, but God will judge them because of it. If we look at things in that light, we have reason to hope. I have been so very encouraged by all of the things said on this forum. We’ve been wandering in the desert for forty years now, but we are going to get to the Promised Land together.
Peace,
Ryan

 

[ServusChristi]

I think we are going to need a Vatican III, a great dogmatic Council similar to Trent that will condemn all the modernist and liberal heresies that have arisen in the modern world.

 

[Chris_Burgwald]

If the Church in 1962 was as good as some seem to think, how did it fall apart so quickly?

As far as the statistics indicating decline are concerned, they do not indicate a cause-effect relationship between the Council and all the bad stuff; one might just as easily say that things would have been worse had the Council never happened. Don’t confuse correlation or coincidence with causation. Both are logical fallacies… “cum hoc ergo propter hoc” and “post hoc ergo propter hoc”.

 

[ServusChristi]

When something is on the rise until event A happens, and then immediately goes into decline after event A, it would seem that event A has something to do with the change. This is a simple cause and effect rather than post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Cause: seminaries were ‘reformed’ and liberalized.
Effect: massive drop in the number of new Priests

Cause: seminaries such as the FSSP provide solid, orthodox formation for young men.
Effect: The FSSP has to turn people away because they do not have enough resources for all of their candidates.

An interesting point you raise though is, how could such a strong Church suddenly go into such decline? I think we would be right to speculate that their was REAL weakness in the pre-conciliar Church. The liberal revolution would never have succeeded otherwise.
Peace,
Ryan

 

[Chris_Burgwald]

ServusChristi:

I think we are going to need a Vatican III, a great dogmatic Council similar to Trent that will condemn all the modernist and liberal heresies that have arisen in the modern world.

Ryan, I’m definitely sympathetic, but what would be the point of such condemnations? Didn’t Pope St. Pius X et al already make the Church’s stance clear?

I think we need to truly implement Vatican II first, as JPII, Ratzinger, and others have been asking.

 

[Catholic_Eagle]

Why don’t w have a Trent II. In the “spiritof Trent” not the spirit of Vaticanum II

 

[ServusChristi]

Chris Burgwald:

Servus, I’m definitely sympathetic, but what would be the point of such condemnations? Did Pope St. Pius X et al already make the Church’s stance clear?

It seems that Pope Saint Pius X and Blessed Pius IX have been quite forgotten. How many Catholics know what Pascendi Domenici Gregis

is or *Quanta Cura *and the *Syllabus of Errors? *They and their teachings are regarded as remote history.

 

[ServusChristi]

Catholic Eagle:

Why don’t w have a Trent II. In the “spiritof Trent” not the spirit of Vaticanum II

Sounds good… though I don’t see the Church having another Council in Trent. Perhaps Vatican III could be called in the Spirit of Vatican I, or the Spirit of what might have been Vatican II?

 

[Chris_Burgwald]

ServusChristi:

It seems that Pope Saint Pius X and Blessed Pius IX have been quite forgotten. How many Catholics know what Pascendi Domenici Gregis is or *Quanta Cura *and the *Syllabus of Errors? *They and their teachings are regarded as remote history.

Agreed. But AFAIK, ecumenical councils aren’t called to “remind” Catholics of the perennial teaching of the Church. Take Trent, for example: it defined things which hadn’t been clarified or “dogmatized” previously (e.g. justification).

We don’t need another council… we need better catechesis.

 

[ServusChristi]

Chris Burgwald:

Agreed. But AFAIK, ecumenical councils aren’t called to “remind” Catholics of the perennial teaching of the Church. Take Trent, for example: it defined things which hadn’t been clarified or “dogmatized” previously (e.g. justification).

We don’t need another council… we need better catechesis.

I agree that we need catechesis… definitely! However, the anti-modernist teachings of the Popes Pius aren’t dogmatized either. They are teachings of the ordinary Magisterium. Isn’t that what Trent did? The teaching on justification is perennial Catholic truth. Trent clarified and dogmatized everything.

Good points though.
God bless,
Ryan

 

[ATeNumquam]

plakamhil:

That may be true in the USA, but not everywhere. There’s a noticiable upsurge “in vocations on all levels of Religious life (Priests, Brothers, Sisters)” in some parts of the world, particularly in southern africa.

plakamhil

It may not be of much comfort to you who have to bear with a lot of abuses post-Vatican II, but at least the liturgical abuses are not by any means occuring everywhere in the universal Church.

The ‘downsurge’ in vocations is pretty much occuring everywhere in the western/materialist world. In my country, New Zealand, the main source of vocations is from the large Pacific Island immigrant population (Samoans, Tongans, Fijians) who are first-generation NZers and who are VERY fervent and quite traditional Catholics. They are basically keeping the Church here alive and growing! Not to mention the Korean immigrants - hundreds of adult baptisms each year here.

 

[Britta]

ServusChristi:

When something is on the rise until event A happens, and then immediately goes into decline after event A, it would seem that event A has something to do with the change. This is a simple cause and effect rather than post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Cause: seminaries were ‘reformed’ and liberalized.
Effect: massive drop in the number of new Priests

Cause: seminaries such as the FSSP provide solid, orthodox formation for young men.
Effect: The FSSP has to turn people away because they do not have enough resources for all of their candidates.

An interesting point you raise though is, how could such a strong Church suddenly go into such decline? I think we would be right to speculate that their was REAL weakness in the pre-conciliar Church. The liberal revolution would never have succeeded otherwise.
Peace,
Ryan

I was thinking the same thing. There is a bigger picture here.

We are living in a society that embraces and even glorifies ideas very contrary to Jesus’ teachings. Unfortunately, even christians are just as susceptible to these ideas. In looking at the situation as a whole, with all churches involved, I think you may see a similar trend across the board.

As a convert, I have to say that if it had not been for VII, I would have had a harder time coming to the Church. Now…there is nothing that can keep me away.

 

[Mandi]

Story:

I consider it a miracle that the Latin Mass is still around, what with all the agressiveness of trying to get rid of it by the liberals.

On October 13, 1884, Pope Leo XIII had a vision concering the future of the Catholic Church. After the pontiff had finished his Mass he stood like in a trance at the foot of the altar. When asked what happened he replied.

"In front of the tabernacle, he had heard a confrontation between Jesus and Satan. Satan boasted that if he had enough time and enough power, he could destroy the Church. Jesus asked him: “How much time and how much power?” Satan replied that he would need a century and greater influence over men who would give themselves to him. Jesus said, ‘So be it’.

The twentieth century is the century given to Satan to do his best to destroy the Church.
Apparently, Leo was then permitted a horrible vision of the attacks that would be waged by evil spirits against souls in the Church, as well as a consoling vision of the Archangel Michael thrusting satan and his legions back down into the abyss of hell.

After this vision the pope immediately wrote the prayer to St. Michael to be recited after Mass throughout the world…we no longer say it???

 

[fix]

John Higgins:

Is the Church better off because of Vatican II? I think so.

John

Let’s see…dissenting priests protesting Humanae Vitae, no catechesis for almost 40 years, drastic decline in vocations, most “catholics” hold beliefs no different than the pagan culture around them, birth control is seen as almost a sacrament, the homosexualist infiltration of the priesthood, radical feminists in control of chanceries and vocation offices, decline in mass attendence, liberal American bishops defying Rome at every turn, homosexual abuse crisis, etc.

Now, I guess one can’t say there is a direct cause and effect between VII and all that, but one can’t completely discount how flawed VII was. Yes, it was hijacked, but that is not the entire story either.

 

[Richard_Lamb]

All of these points I think miss the over al picture. Vatican II only changed the externals of the Church. Brought it into the modern era, it did not change church teaching but only affirmed it.

 

[Lance]

John Higgins:

Is the Church better off because of Vatican II? I think so.

John

I am a 1970’s convert so Vatican II is all I know and I love it!

 

[Trad_Catholic]

Richard Lamb:

All of these points I think miss the over al picture. Vatican II only changed the externals of the Church. Brought it into the modern era, it did not change church teaching but only affirmed it.

That’s right: Vat II was not dogmatic but pastoral. It formed NO new belief; however, it made fabrications and passed them off as belief, such as religious liberty, salvation outside the Church, etc., all of which is wrong.

 

[Lance]

Trad_Catholic:

Of course not–buy Handbook of Leading Catholic Indicators; read it through; and try to say that again with a straight face. Give me a break! Nothing is better. No seminarians, no nuns, no Priests, modernist and heretic Bishops, no converts, heretics posing as Catholics praised, such as Kerry, sacreligious Masses, hand Communion, vernacular, no ritual, the list is literally nearly infinite! Vatican II was by far the worst of all councils ever held by the Church (that is why it was declared to be fallible by Paul VI and John XXIII, for it contained MANY errors, esp. concerning “religious liberty,” eccumenism, and heretics/heresies). The current Pope has caused scandal beyond repair with his treatment of heretics and their satanic beliefs. Nothing is better now…not one thing.

No converts? I am one. No seminarians, no nuns, no priests? Where do you live? My parish has 2 seminarians and one lady entering a convent.

 

[John_Higgins]

Okay, then, Trad, let me restructure this for you:

No seminarians because of Vatican II

no nuns because of Vatican II

no Priests because of Vatican II

modernist and heretic Bishops because of Vatican II

no converts because of Vatican II

heretics posing as Catholics praised because of Vatican II

sacreligious Masses because of Vatican II

hand Communion because of Vatican II

vernacular because of Vatican II

no ritual because of Vatican II

Don’t think so. And as for—

Trad_Catholic:

The current Pope has caused scandal beyond repair with his treatment of heretics and their satanic beliefs.

in the mythical “Church of Old” which you revere you would be lambasted for saying anything like that about the Supreme Pontiff.

Give ME a break!

John