T
Trad_Catholic
Guest
No seminarians in comparison to before Vat II
no nuns in comparison to before Vat II
no priests in comparison to before Vat II
- Status
no nuns in comparison to before Vat II
no priests in comparison to before Vat II
T
Trad_Catholic
Guest
John Higgins:
“I don’t think so” isn’t exactly what I consider a logically-based argument.
A
Arrowood
Guest
There are a few things that I think any analysis of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council needs to consider:
How do we know we need another ecumenical council until we see what God works out through this one?
- No ecumenical council occurs in a vacuum. VII was a response to problems in the Church. Based on my understanding of things, the modernists would have come out of the woodwork even if VII did not happen. Their use of VII to justify their views and practices seems to me more a defense against VII than a rally behind it. Most modern liberals don’t even want to hear what VII has to say - “we’ve moved beyond” is the excuse I often hear. Vatican II was called because the Church saw a need to “modernize” in order to better serve the modern world, but wanted to do so without becoming “modernist.”
- Ecumenical councils typically take about 100 years to be fully implemented. The bouncing around after Vatican II is not surprising. Nor is it out of range of the Holy Spirit’s ability to bring us around to a full implementation of the council.
- Signs of turn around are everywhere! Look at EWTN, Relevant Radio, Catholic Answers, Ave Maria University, Franciscan University, etc., etc,., etc. These movements are true to Vatican II and the “liberals” seem to hate them! In fact, liberals are in the sad position of finding themselves “conservative” in the sense that they are fighting the changes back to orthodoxy and trying to retain their old way of life. The changes happening in the Church now are definitely in the direction that I would call “reformed orthodoxy” - reformed in the sense that Pope Paul VI meant in Ecclesiam Suam. Liberals just see it as a pendulum shift back to “conservatism,” but I see it as the beginning of the true implementation of Vatican II.
- The purpose of Vatican II was not to reform the liturgy! Yes, that was one of the major movements of the Council. However, the main focus of Vatican II was to pastorally communicate the definition the Church’s role in the modern world. Notice that the documents always define that role based on Tradition.
- Liturgical reform was hijacked by liberals, but not in the creation of the Novus Ordo. Rather, the hijacking took the form of informal and illegitimate changes such as liturgical dancing, redesigning architecture, and changes in music.
How do we know we need another ecumenical council until we see what God works out through this one?
V
Viajero
Guest
I went to a Tridentine Mass once. It was interesting. It was packed. I could hardly hear a thing. And what I did hear, I didn’t understand. I do plan to go back again, but I was advised to purchase a St Joseph’s Missal and bring it along.
I used to love going to the “contemporary” or “folk” Mass. It’s also packed and just seems more joyous. For a while, I used to go to the noontime Mass, when the four-part choir sings amid the bells, and candles, and incense. Now I mainly go to the early morning Mass. It’s quiet. It’s less crowded. And I could easily find a parking space. It’s the best way, in my opinion, to start the day.
My question is: Would I have had all these choices before Vatican II? It seems to me, all the different style Masses I go to are still the same Mass. The only differences seem to be superficial, which makes me wonder - did many pre-VII Catholics base their faith on such superficiality?
One thing I do miss about the pre-VII days - I hear that you didn’t have to do the “peace be with you” thing. That’d be nice. The kiss of peace just seems so fake.
I used to love going to the “contemporary” or “folk” Mass. It’s also packed and just seems more joyous. For a while, I used to go to the noontime Mass, when the four-part choir sings amid the bells, and candles, and incense. Now I mainly go to the early morning Mass. It’s quiet. It’s less crowded. And I could easily find a parking space. It’s the best way, in my opinion, to start the day.
My question is: Would I have had all these choices before Vatican II? It seems to me, all the different style Masses I go to are still the same Mass. The only differences seem to be superficial, which makes me wonder - did many pre-VII Catholics base their faith on such superficiality?
One thing I do miss about the pre-VII days - I hear that you didn’t have to do the “peace be with you” thing. That’d be nice. The kiss of peace just seems so fake.
T
Trad_Catholic
Guest
“2. Ecumenical councils typically take about 100 years to be fully implemented. The bouncing around after Vatican II is not surprising. Nor is it out of range of the Holy Spirit’s ability to bring us around to a full implementation of the council.” That is especially amusing, not to be offensive. 10 years after the council, “not only does THIS council take 25 years to be fully implemented, but ALL take that long.” Then at 25 years, "“not only does THIS council take 40 years to be fully implemented, but ALL take that long.” Now, at 40 years, "“not only does THIS council take 100 years to be fully implemented, but ALL take that long.” It just keeps getting longer and longer. Granted, 100 is the highest number I have heard this far. Yes, the novus ordo in itself was liberal–it was put together by Bugnini, a discovered freemason after the Mass was promulgated as an OPTION. Vatican II was actually not called because of problems. It was called because Vatican I was interrupted when the Papal States were stolen from the Holy See. It needed to be brought to a conclusion, as the Bishops’ individual roles had not been defined, only the Pope’s (as was seen in the declaration on infallibility). You say modernists would have come out V II or not?? They had BEEN out for almost 100 years by that time in full force, yet the Church had alays rejected the heresy; however, modernism seeped in VII. It would not be accepted as it is today had the leaders of the Church help firm.
S
space_ghost
Guest
Latin Mass Only:
but, it did say the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail…
you know… they never said the gates of hell wouldn’t try to prevail!
but, it did say the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail…
P
PilgrimJWT
Guest
Vatican II brought many much needed reforms.
I think many of those who are unhappy with Vatican II are those who are sentimentally tied to how things were when they were growing up. Church history is a whole lot longer than any one lifetime! Much of Vatican II went back many centuries to examine Church teachings and customs, and to restore good things which had been forgotten. There were 1,500 years of Church history before the Council of Trent.
The many troubles the Church is experiencing today were not caused by Vatican II. In this country and in the West generally, the real enemy has been a materialistic secularism in which things are seen to be more important than people.
It brings to my mind a comment I once read by Will Durant–“The machine is the enemy of the priest”!!
I think many of those who are unhappy with Vatican II are those who are sentimentally tied to how things were when they were growing up. Church history is a whole lot longer than any one lifetime! Much of Vatican II went back many centuries to examine Church teachings and customs, and to restore good things which had been forgotten. There were 1,500 years of Church history before the Council of Trent.
The many troubles the Church is experiencing today were not caused by Vatican II. In this country and in the West generally, the real enemy has been a materialistic secularism in which things are seen to be more important than people.
It brings to my mind a comment I once read by Will Durant–“The machine is the enemy of the priest”!!
O
otm
Guest
For all who criticize Vatican 2, how many of you have actually read the documents completely, and how recently? I find that if I dig hard enough, I usualy find that the conservative who is condemning everything they don’t like, and who is tying it to Vatican 2, has not read the documents themselves, and has little balanced view of any history prior to that, other than what they have picked up from other conservatives.
Most people have little real sense of recent history, and fail to understand or appreciate how incredible the impact on society has been of the changes in science in the last 100 years. And science has been progressing so rapidly that we are hardly able to keep up with the change, let alone understand how that change has impacted us. V2 occured not long after two hugh events; WW1 and WW2. WW2 took a hugh number of men and sent them off to two major fronts, leaving women in large part to fill in the necessary gaps in industry. That change alone had reprecussions on the family that are still being felt today, and are just now beginning to provide enough information to give social scientists the ability to start valid and meaningful comparisons.
Televison made a massive change in the way we receive information, and made information available to a large segment of the population that never had it before. It also dumbed down information which is complex, and has succeeded in passing off opinions as facts. V2 hit at a time in history where information was more rapidly available to a greater number of people than ever before in history; it followed on the heels of the greatest growth in post high school education the world had ever seen. The net result was that Catholics of 25 years before V2 relied on their priests and nuns in the large part for education on what the Church taught; by the time V2 hit, people were much more broadly educated (not necessarily better), had way more sources to turn to, and little real training as to how to evaluate those sources. We had three assassinations, almost one on top of the other; one of the most real threats of nuclear war we could ever dream of (Cuba), massive world powers with armies and weapons capable of destroying the world as we know it, two “police actions” (Korea and Viet Nam) instigated by an enemy who was perceived to be entirely capable of wiping us out, a sexual revolution that had started about 70 years before (it goes back to before the turn of the century, folks), and the sociological change was occuring faster than anyone could grasp. Yes, Modernism had an influence, but not as great as many would believe. Post Modernism got its start long before V2. Most people were, and still are, woefully unaware of what was going on in the Church leading up to V2, and even more woefully informed (and still are) about the changes which V2 implemented. And the loss of priests and nuns, changes in catechesis, and many of the other attendant problems are due to the general changes in society, not to V2.
Most people have little real sense of recent history, and fail to understand or appreciate how incredible the impact on society has been of the changes in science in the last 100 years. And science has been progressing so rapidly that we are hardly able to keep up with the change, let alone understand how that change has impacted us. V2 occured not long after two hugh events; WW1 and WW2. WW2 took a hugh number of men and sent them off to two major fronts, leaving women in large part to fill in the necessary gaps in industry. That change alone had reprecussions on the family that are still being felt today, and are just now beginning to provide enough information to give social scientists the ability to start valid and meaningful comparisons.
Televison made a massive change in the way we receive information, and made information available to a large segment of the population that never had it before. It also dumbed down information which is complex, and has succeeded in passing off opinions as facts. V2 hit at a time in history where information was more rapidly available to a greater number of people than ever before in history; it followed on the heels of the greatest growth in post high school education the world had ever seen. The net result was that Catholics of 25 years before V2 relied on their priests and nuns in the large part for education on what the Church taught; by the time V2 hit, people were much more broadly educated (not necessarily better), had way more sources to turn to, and little real training as to how to evaluate those sources. We had three assassinations, almost one on top of the other; one of the most real threats of nuclear war we could ever dream of (Cuba), massive world powers with armies and weapons capable of destroying the world as we know it, two “police actions” (Korea and Viet Nam) instigated by an enemy who was perceived to be entirely capable of wiping us out, a sexual revolution that had started about 70 years before (it goes back to before the turn of the century, folks), and the sociological change was occuring faster than anyone could grasp. Yes, Modernism had an influence, but not as great as many would believe. Post Modernism got its start long before V2. Most people were, and still are, woefully unaware of what was going on in the Church leading up to V2, and even more woefully informed (and still are) about the changes which V2 implemented. And the loss of priests and nuns, changes in catechesis, and many of the other attendant problems are due to the general changes in society, not to V2.
C
Chris_Burgwald
Guest
Again, two points:
- If the pre-conciliar Church was so wonderful, how did it collapse [sic] so quickly and easily?
- Fix correctly alludes to the fact that correlation does not indicate causation; if you can’t point to something in the texts, how can you say that the Council was at fault?
C
Chris_Burgwald
Guest
Trad, the conciliar documents were approved by overwhelming majorities… I mean, we’re talking about half a dozen “nays” on the documents. How can all the bishops together with the pope be accused of helping hell prevail?
J
jimmy
Guest
The main problem with Vatican II is that it raises the position of the people higher and closer to God. When this happens there is a problem. It creates a weaker form of praising God. You must remember that God was the creater and Author of life and church isn’t about me and having fun, it is about worshiping God. Vatican II took a little step toward protestantism with the change in the mass. They tried to appease the people too much. The worst result was that the tridentine mass was banned for almost 20 years and noone was allowed to say it. This caused some people to go against the church because they felt they had to keep the mass alive. I don’t know what the church was like Pre-Vatican II but I know that if someone wanted to worship God in a humble way they always had the mass. After they changed the mass you could not say that. They still had the problems of pre VII - and many more as it seems with the statistics and the recent scandal - but they did not have the same great mass.
Chris Burgwald
You can destroy something beautiful very easily. If you take the keystone out of an arch it loses quite a bit of its support. The mass is one of the most important things in holding the church together. If you change that and put a lesser form of worship in its place people will change with it. They will become less holy because less is expected of them. Maybe not everyone but a large majority. Just because someone is guided by the Holy Spirit does not mean they have to follow the Holy Spirits guidance. I don’t think that the Popes and I hope none of the Bishops had any bad intentions for the church, but there decisions affect alot of people.
Trad_Catholic
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).
Can you give me a source for this info about the Popes declaring it fallible.
Chris Burgwald
You can destroy something beautiful very easily. If you take the keystone out of an arch it loses quite a bit of its support. The mass is one of the most important things in holding the church together. If you change that and put a lesser form of worship in its place people will change with it. They will become less holy because less is expected of them. Maybe not everyone but a large majority. Just because someone is guided by the Holy Spirit does not mean they have to follow the Holy Spirits guidance. I don’t think that the Popes and I hope none of the Bishops had any bad intentions for the church, but there decisions affect alot of people.
Trad_Catholic
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).
Can you give me a source for this info about the Popes declaring it fallible.
D
deogratias
Guest
Vatican II is about more than the liturgy and actually the current liturgy was not pescribed by Vatican II but evolved from it.
Anyway - liturgically and theologically I would say I am a traditionalist and not a modernist yet I can’t agree with those traditionalists who say all the problems in the church today exist because of Vatican II. If there had been no problems in the church, then there would have been no need to call a council, right? Things were falling apart and it was many of those Tridentine Priests and Nuns who wanted to be laicized and it was Tridentine Bishops and Priests on the council. So there were problems then as there are now and the council was called to try to fix them.
But it seemed no one knew how to implement it and catachesis was poor to none. A lot of pre-council anticipation of what the council would decree became reality when it never came to pass. This lack of clear teaching and formation and more involvement by the laity to allow some of them to run with the ball in all sorts of unplanned directions all in the name of Vatican II
Then we have the other extremes, the liberal progressives who want to knock down everything good from the “old days”.
Cardinal Ratzinger said, “What devestated the Church in the decade after the Council was not the Council but the refusal to accept it.”
The council hoped for spiritual renewal of all Catholics and instead we have this constant fighting between “liberals” and “conservatives” each pridefully contending they are right and the other is wrong.
Every great period in church history it is said, began with a crisis, so perhaps we are on the verge of another great period.
As I said in the beginning, Vatican II is about more than the liturgy and there are some really great Church documents written as a result of the council - all sound Catholic teaching, but who has read them?
I once asked an SSPX about one of John Paul’s Letters and his reply was “I never read anything written by him” - this from a group that claims loyalty to the Pope.
But I also have asked Post Vatican II Catholics about some of the same documents - and they never heard of them either.
To assume that those of us who participate in the forum are representative of the Catholic in the pew is a big mistake. Many just come to Mass on Sunday, and know little or nothing about their faith of today or of the past.
Puttin soap box and myself to bed now.
Anyway - liturgically and theologically I would say I am a traditionalist and not a modernist yet I can’t agree with those traditionalists who say all the problems in the church today exist because of Vatican II. If there had been no problems in the church, then there would have been no need to call a council, right? Things were falling apart and it was many of those Tridentine Priests and Nuns who wanted to be laicized and it was Tridentine Bishops and Priests on the council. So there were problems then as there are now and the council was called to try to fix them.
But it seemed no one knew how to implement it and catachesis was poor to none. A lot of pre-council anticipation of what the council would decree became reality when it never came to pass. This lack of clear teaching and formation and more involvement by the laity to allow some of them to run with the ball in all sorts of unplanned directions all in the name of Vatican II
Then we have the other extremes, the liberal progressives who want to knock down everything good from the “old days”.
Cardinal Ratzinger said, “What devestated the Church in the decade after the Council was not the Council but the refusal to accept it.”
The council hoped for spiritual renewal of all Catholics and instead we have this constant fighting between “liberals” and “conservatives” each pridefully contending they are right and the other is wrong.
Every great period in church history it is said, began with a crisis, so perhaps we are on the verge of another great period.
As I said in the beginning, Vatican II is about more than the liturgy and there are some really great Church documents written as a result of the council - all sound Catholic teaching, but who has read them?
I once asked an SSPX about one of John Paul’s Letters and his reply was “I never read anything written by him” - this from a group that claims loyalty to the Pope.
But I also have asked Post Vatican II Catholics about some of the same documents - and they never heard of them either.
To assume that those of us who participate in the forum are representative of the Catholic in the pew is a big mistake. Many just come to Mass on Sunday, and know little or nothing about their faith of today or of the past.
Puttin soap box and myself to bed now.
C
Chris_Burgwald
Guest
I agree with this, jimmy, but it’s an indictment not of the Council, but of the implementation of the Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy in the years after the Council.
No one is denying that bad things happened after Vatican II. My point is that you can’t blame Vatican II for them, and that’s the case with the liturgy: Sacrosanctum Concilium doesn’t call for the eradication of latin or the turning of the priest toward the people. Those were all *post-*conciliar decisions.
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
I just got back from an academic year in Austria (one of Europe’s lesser-known traditionally Catholic countries [while now only around 75% of the population, Catholics used to number over 90%]) and I can tell you that the Catholic countries of the old world are just as dead as America. It’s just as hard to find a “Catholic” who adheres to the Catholic faith in those countries as it is in the good ol’ USofA. They’re dried out husks of the Church in which pretty much only the elderly and those accompanying them bother to show up at church unless there’s something “exciting” going on (a big feast, a wedding, a traditional holiday, etc.).
On another note, a finally read the documents of Vatican II last year and was shocked at how “conservative” the council seemed to be. I don’t really know where liberals get any of the **** they spew about the “spirit of Vatican II”. Although I wasn’t even alive for the “old school” I get more traditionalist by the day because of the damage the liberals have done to the Church.
I’d also like to pose a question. One of the biggest reasons for traditionalist schisms is not liturgical change but the fact that Vatican II really does seem to turn age-old teachings of the Church on their heads (religious freedom, salvation outside of Catholicism, etc.). How are we to understand the authority of both the old and the new? As Vatican II was not a “teaching” council, and its documents were not worded as such, what doctrinal authority does it have?
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
The Church’s teaching on justification actually wasn’t fixed at the time of Trent. In fact, true to form, various religious orders had their own particular theories/interpretations of the matter. In its teachings, Trent could have avoided tightening the screws too much, but the Council Fathers were led to settle the matter once and for all.
S
Shoshana
Guest
Cause: seminaries were ‘reformed’ and liberalized.
Effect: massive drop in the number of new Priests
You only need to read ‘Good-bye good men’ to realize the horror of what was/is happening. I asked my priest if this was true, and he replied yes. There are many abuses, homosexuality being prominent but also many liturgical abuses. Even worse, there is occult abuses that any Catholic in their right mind would’ve not accepted. How much have the seminaries been cleaned out… I do not know. All I know that the homosexual undercurrent pushed the heterosexual seminarians to the edge. Even declaring the heterosexual person to be psychologically unfit. If the young seminarian tried to go to another seminary his reputation followed him, thus, causing him great obstacles to ordination and many times ‘kicked out’, if he already did not quit. This caused much confusion and in some cases, loss of faith. Can you imagine a person wanting to be a priest loses his faith in the interim because of the immorality of seminaries?:crying:
I presume not all seminaries are rotten but my priest said it was very common. And he also stated that if we didn’t have homosexual priests, there would be hardly any. What to say??? My stand on this, they have to take a vow a celibacy anyhow…let us pray for our priestd…:bowdown:
Blessings,
Shoshana
Effect: massive drop in the number of new Priests
You only need to read ‘Good-bye good men’ to realize the horror of what was/is happening. I asked my priest if this was true, and he replied yes. There are many abuses, homosexuality being prominent but also many liturgical abuses. Even worse, there is occult abuses that any Catholic in their right mind would’ve not accepted. How much have the seminaries been cleaned out… I do not know. All I know that the homosexual undercurrent pushed the heterosexual seminarians to the edge. Even declaring the heterosexual person to be psychologically unfit. If the young seminarian tried to go to another seminary his reputation followed him, thus, causing him great obstacles to ordination and many times ‘kicked out’, if he already did not quit. This caused much confusion and in some cases, loss of faith. Can you imagine a person wanting to be a priest loses his faith in the interim because of the immorality of seminaries?:crying:
I presume not all seminaries are rotten but my priest said it was very common. And he also stated that if we didn’t have homosexual priests, there would be hardly any. What to say??? My stand on this, they have to take a vow a celibacy anyhow…let us pray for our priestd…:bowdown:
Blessings,
Shoshana
F
fix
Guest
I must admit I am conflicted when I consider VII. Those who blast the Church before VII are usually modernists or people who allow the personal drama of growing up before 1962 as the sole article that guides every thought about the Church.
Some who blast the Church after VII are being somewhat myopic in not seeing that the Holy Spirit is still at work. As are people in the Church working against the Church. God will not interfer with free will.
With that said, some of the documents in VII are fuzzy and can be intentionally used to spread error. I, also, like to distinguish between God’s ordained will and His permitting will. Is it not possible that much of VII was really about men with bad intentions setting themselves above the Church and slanting documents in their own way?
We see today so much confusion. I am not that old, yet I know in the past documents from Rome could be understood by most folks. They were written in a way to show the truth to all. Today, much of the philosophy is obtuse and easily morphed into things that were not intended. I am not talking specfically about VII, but some of the pope’s stuff.
I really don’t know if VII was God’s ordained will or was His permitting will. We can all assign blame to the council, or the cultural changes or secularism, but I am hard pressed to say that things are going well in the Church today.
Some who blast the Church after VII are being somewhat myopic in not seeing that the Holy Spirit is still at work. As are people in the Church working against the Church. God will not interfer with free will.
With that said, some of the documents in VII are fuzzy and can be intentionally used to spread error. I, also, like to distinguish between God’s ordained will and His permitting will. Is it not possible that much of VII was really about men with bad intentions setting themselves above the Church and slanting documents in their own way?
We see today so much confusion. I am not that old, yet I know in the past documents from Rome could be understood by most folks. They were written in a way to show the truth to all. Today, much of the philosophy is obtuse and easily morphed into things that were not intended. I am not talking specfically about VII, but some of the pope’s stuff.
I really don’t know if VII was God’s ordained will or was His permitting will. We can all assign blame to the council, or the cultural changes or secularism, but I am hard pressed to say that things are going well in the Church today.
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
RE -
5. Sodomite priests (the Lavender Mafia).
5. Sodomite priests (the Lavender Mafia).
- Bishops who routinely protect and shuttle around sodomite priests. (80% to 90% of all sexual abuse cases documented over the past 40+ years deal with priests and teenage boys, not small children or girls.)
C
Catholic_Eagle
Guest
Infiltration of the Church by modernists didn’t happen in a day. The priests who wanted to destroy the Church started early. Have you ever heard of the communist infiltrators inside the Church? They started entering into the CHurch en masse in the 1930’s so they could be in a position to control the Church in 30-50 years. One former communist told a congressional panel that when she was communist she promoted 1000 men to become priests in the CHurch to subvert it.[don’t you think out of a 1000 priests,1 wouldn’t become a bishop?]She also said there were many more around the world.
S
Shoshana
Guest
OK Eagle, now you are talking about Bella Dodd…right?
Blessings,
Shoshana
Blessings,
Shoshana
- Status