Problems in the Church since Vatican II

[IntegraCatholic]

I came across some very enlightening quotes as I was reading Revolution and Counter-Revolution by Professor Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira this evening. I only began the work at the request of a friend, and while I don’t agree wholeheartedly with Corrêa de Oliveira’s exposé on the “First Revolution”–it seems he does not distinguish the good elements of the Renaissance and even of humanism in the life of the Church and even in the Counter-Reformation, which was a reaction against what he calls the “First Revolution”–or certainly with all of the TFP’s positions, especially today, I still think the work would be worthwhile reading for most people. I have learned most from the last section, which he wrote nearly twenty years after the first two parts (I. Revolution and II. Counter-Revolution). The following passages are taken from the last section (“Twenty Years After”):

revolucao-contrarevolucao.com/English_rcr.asp?id=117. Consider the section 4A with his additional commentary added in 1992.

It begins: “Within the perspective of Revolution and Counter-Revolution, the greatest success attained by the smiling post-Stalinist communism was the Second Vatican Council´s enigmatic, disconcerting, incredible, and apocalyptically tragic silence about communism.”

I found all his points to be quite on the mark. They are beneficial because it documents how each of the Popes since the council (less John Paul I) have recognized the great misery the Church has experienced in its aftermath rather than the benefit supposedly expected by many persons in the Church hierarchy and laity. It also decisively takes a stand against the errors in judgment of the Council Fathers and the lack of a good where that good ought to be in the documents of the council, albeit it in a political rather than a dogmatic sphere. To his credit, Corrêa de Oliveira was an authority on history and, to a lesser extent, philosophy rather than theology.

Far from being censured or condemned by the Church, Corrêa de Oliveira’s works–not only Revolution and Counter Revolution but several of his other works, as well–have received much acclaim from the hierarchy, including dozens of Cardinals and even then-Msgr. Giovanni Battista Montini, later Paul VI. This is a very strong argument in favor of traditionalists who also criticize the prudential judgments of the Council Fathers, recognize the current crisis in the Church that has taken effect since the Second Vatican Council, and who discuss the related issues. It also provides an example of the same thought at least as early as 1976 by a highly acclaimed Catholic author, who has published hundreds of thousands of editions of his books and millions of editions of his articles. The relevant letters of support can be found at the following link: revolucao-contrarevolucao.com/english_revcontrarev.asp. I hope to find a copy of his Nobility and Analogous Traditional Elites in the Allocutions of Pius XII to improve my understanding of this topic.

 

[edwest2]

I don’t know where this material comes from. It is false. From the booklet, The 2nd Vatican Council, published in 1962 by The American Press.

“The first vital problem facing the Church is the existence and activity of world communism, which has already established itself throughout one-third of the earth and is assiduously preparing for conquest of the remaining two-thirds. For the Church, communism presents a problem without precedent.”

The speaker is Joseph Folliet, described as “well known in Western Europe as a Catholic thinker, editor and writer.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[Genesis315]

While the word “communism” was not used by the Council, the evils perpetrated by communists were addressed. Likewise, Pope Paul did explicitly address it (by name) in his encyclical Ecclesiam Suam promulgated during the Council. Likewise, it had already been condemned other times by previous Pontiffs. Its not like people didn’t know where the Church stood on the matter.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

It’s still clearly a prudential error not to mention communism by name. Of course, it is a result of the incorrect ideology that drove the council, namely to promote good without condemning evil.

 

[Genesis315]

I don’t know if that’s really the case though, or just a caricature. It may be generally so, but not specifically or absolutely. For example, in Gaudium et Spes, the document generally considered too positive and optimistic, atheism is explicitly rejected “root and branch” and atheism enforced by the state on the pretext that religion distracts from man constructing the earthly city (a reference to the communist program) is explicitly repudiated as a “poisonous doctrine.”

 

[Jane11]

To put it bluntly: If the Pope, in communion with all the bishops, had consecrated Russia as Our Lady Fatima requested this insidious and evil error would never have spread. Yes, the Berlin Wall came down and USSR changed the name of the country. What does that mean? The tactics became slyer, that’s all , i.e. “what they don’t know won’t hurt them.” Uh, no!

 

[IntegraCatholic]

I don’t know if that’s really the case though, or just a caricature. It may be generally so, but not specifically or absolutely. For example, in Gaudium et Spes, the document generally considered too positive and optimistic, atheism is explicitly rejected “root and branch” and atheism enforced by the state on the pretext that religion distracts from man constructing the earthly city (a reference to the communist program) is explicitly repudiated as a “poisonous doctrine.”

The opening speech of the Council by John XXIII specifically says this.

The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all ???].

For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a Magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.

At the outset of the Second Vatican Council, it is evident, as always, that the truth of the Lord will remain forever. We see, in fact, as one age succeeds another, that the opinions of men follow one another and exclude each other. And often errors vanish as quickly as they arise, like fog before the sun. The Church has always opposed these errors. Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity. Nowadays however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She consider that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations. Not, certainly, that there is a lack of fallacious teaching, opinions, and dangerous concepts to be guarded against an dissipated. But these are so obviously in contrast with the right norm of honesty, and have produced such lethal fruits that by now it would seem that men of themselves are inclined to condemn them, particularly those ways of life which despise God and His law or place excessive confidence in technical progress and a well-being based exclusively on the comforts of life ???]. They are ever more deeply convinced of the paramount dignity of the human person and of his perfection as well as of the duties which that implies. Even more important, experience has taught men that violence inflicted on others, the might of arms, and political domination, are of no help at all in finding a happy solution to the grave problems which afflict them.

Jane, you are quite right about the modern methods of communism. Corrêa de Oliveira points this ought well in the third portion of his work I mentioned in the original post.

 

[sseba2012]

The account of the Creation in Genesis uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

If we assume that Evolution is true, the scenario might happen like this. A manlike being is slowly evolving. At some point God gives these beings a soul. They become human being with free will and responsibility.​

dentist
goldmines

 

[DORIS_HARTSOCK]

I’m a 79 yr. Old women and i’ve been a roman catholic all my life.before vatican11 no matter what parish you went to church teaching was the same.sorry to say it is no longer true.i haven’t received holy communion for a couple of months because i missed mass one day because of bad weather.(scuples i guess)so i looked in my catholic encyclopedia and it said you had to go to confession once a year to make your easter duty.a elderly priest told my elderly friend "you don’t have to go to confession you older people have nothing to confess"i remember at the time saying it’s a sacrement and you receive grace.many years ago i subed for a 3rd grade cathecism class and was teaching the class about receiving grace the children were so interested.that eveinig i told thecathecism teacher for the high school about what i taught about grace he said "if i mentioned that they would think that’s the girl seating next to them.i know i’m old but it hurts to see people (younger than me of course)chomping on the host and walking like they just came back from getting a coke.there is no reverance or respect.i don’t fault the people they weren’t taught properly.i pray that things will be better.i can remember the breakdown when my 55yr.old son made he’s 1st holy communion so it started many years a go.god bless you all.

 

[laszlo]

in the sixteenth century, humanism, the Renaissance, and Protestantism (First Revolution); in the eighteenth century, the French Revolution (Second Revolution); and in the second decade of this century, Communism (Third Revolution).
revolucao-contrarevolucao.com/English_rcr.asp?id=117

What this article is doing with Vatican II?

In the reality the Enemy works against God’s plan since the beginning. The council wanted to accommodate the Church position in this war, partly with success (the quarter of the Catholics is still faithful to the Church, and there are some hopes the revival of the unity what the Reformation broke). Naturally the council was not able to resolve the problem completely.

 

[nordskoven]

Our Lady of the Rosary appeared in 1917 and thereafter with Jesus, too, to affirm God’s wish that the Immaculate Heart be revered; and that His will was to crown her purity of intent with the triumph of converting Russia IF INVITED by the bishops, led by Peter. This consecration was not and has not been done as requested: Peter, with all bishops in their respective cathedrals; publicly; solemnly; at one time; consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart by name; for the conversion of that nation–given as the ONLY means to a period of peace. So where was the “Vatican II nexus of evil” theory then? Because millions died under Russian control and direction before Vatican II bargained away the Church’s putting the Evil Empire on the agenda. The issue is human pride and the cure is, not surprisingly, that human paragon of purity of intent, the humble Immaculate Heart, whose willing trust in God’s will enabled our Savior’s incarnation, crucifixion, death and resurrection.

 

[GloriousOrder]

One of my own biggest personal problems with Vatican II is the hopeful languages popes have used in retrospect. It doesn’t seem to correlate with the reality of the situation. Anyone who has read the apostolic letter before the prologue of the Catechism of the Catholic Church can see this discrepancy. The brief letter of John Paul II communicates a great optimism for the positive fruits of the Second Council; however, we see that Mass attendance has plummeted across the world uniformly, catechesis has become a farce in many places (ironically ), most Catholics I’ve met don’t know the first thing about Baptism, and so on.

Perhaps all the terrible problems for the Church merely happened after Vatican II by coincidence with the secularisation of culture. This being the case, the optimistic language used by JP II still hints at a certain renewal that might have stemmed the tide of secularisation. Obviously, the Church has totally failed to do this for 40 years. The idea of letting in “fresh air” apparently allowed secularism to enter the Church, when true theological fresh air would have built up defenses against it. What a shame that all of Vatican II’s documents are so sensible… but the subsequent events have been so bad it’s perplexing.

 

[nordskoven]

**Hope you find a copy of Nobility and Analogous Traditional Elites. It will display the radical elitism that contravenes John Paul II’s “preferential option for the poor.” A full-color center fold touts the “preferential option for the elites”…like Plinio! And co-author, Marian Horvat! You know, professors! Elitism further contravenes God’s policy: election. The elect are those God choses; not those who chose themselves.

The stiff price you’ll pay for the Nobility book is punishment enough for ignoring the Brazilian bishops’ condemnation of TFP aka America Needs Fatima/ANF (Horvat’s splinter group is Tradition in Action/TIA) for their disdainful view of the priesthood in favor of their preferential option for their “warrior-monk” vocation. HINT: Since their founding, TFP has had no priestly vocations. Get it? By their fruits you’ll know them. PS Plinio promised to promptly rise from the dead and TFP is still waiting…PPS Don’t forget the genetic elites, like Robert E. Lee, hero of that NobilityThese guys are about as Catholic as the genetic Christians of The DaVinci Code.**

 

[laszlo]

It’s still clearly a prudential error not to mention communism by name. Of course, it is a result of the incorrect ideology that drove the council, namely to promote good without condemning evil.

In 1937 the Mit Brennender Sorge Encyclical

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge_en.html

explicitly condemned the National Socialism and as a result tens of thousand of priest filled the KZ lagers. The Church gained nothing. For many people this was personal experience: to condemn a dictature by name is not useful.

Naturally it is easy to talk from outside.

 

[laszlo]

The idea of letting in “fresh air” apparently allowed secularism to enter the Church, when true theological fresh air would have built up defenses against it. What a shame that all of Vatican II’s documents are so sensible… but the subsequent events have been so bad it’s perplexing.

The secularism entered the Church in the middle of 19th Century. The process in the US was somewhat slower, but even here God and the morality was banned from the public life in the fifties much before the council was even dreamed.

Venerable Pius IX tried to condemn the secularism, it did not helped.

 

[manualman]

This thread strikes me the same way as threads where people complain that Pius XII didn’t speak out forcefully enough against the Nazis.

Monday morning quarterbacking sure makes things clear and mistakes look easy to spot. Easy to wonder why people ever MAKE mistakes in such circumstances. But put yourself in 1940 or 1962 and take honest stock. Bluntness and clarity is great in a debating hall. But on the global stage it can get people killed by the millions.

For better or worse, the Church took on communism by denouncing the definition instead of the label. Same effect for thinking people, less knee jerk reaction from unthinking people. Had the Church simply followed the anathematizing approach and called for a Crusade we might have doctrinal clarity among the several dozen survivors on the smoking remains of Earth. Y’all seem to forget that the Cold War was NOT guaranteed to stay cold.

I agree that Realpolitik some times approached cowardice, but bluntness can be foolhardy too.

 

[tjt3]

I agree somewhat with Glorious Order. Sadly sometimes people educate themselves to
imbecility. I read the discussions that took place within the Councils and there was an
emotional struggle that went on between the liberal progressives and the old hard line
Italian traditionalists. I have also read Vatican II ( The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents)
Austin Flannery O.P. as General Editor. In my view , the struggel continues today and the
secularism that has existed through out the centuries ( Rome for instance in the time of
St. Benedict) has been joined with liberal progressive or mondernistic interpretation of the
so called breath of fresh air that Vatican II was supposed to bring. The same kind of modernistic thought that St Pius the X ordered clerics and religious to take an oath against.
And I agree to some extent with Manual Man. Hind sight is as they say 20/20. Many problems have evolved and I probably don`t have to elaborate. We all know what they are from Mass
being said in differant ways and priests and nuns at odds over political choices to theologians
and philosiphers in literary wars and sturggles in Rome between liberals and traditionalists to
break away Catholic orders of monks and religious traditionalists(In habits) not being in communion with Rome. One interestingly notable fact is that it seems the more liberal orders
are decreasing in numbers, ie, Jesuits and Maryknoll, while the more traditional orders have
waiting lists for weekend vocational retreats and their noviates are doubled up, ie the
Dominicans, Benedictines. Other problems exist from Vatican II such as the position on
Ecuminicalism which some argue has taken away from the validity of the one true church.
My solution would be some clarity from the Holy Father with some simple Encyclicals, but then the academics would probably dissimilate them and we would be right back where we
started. Blessings and Peace
Tom T

 

[edwest2]

One of my own biggest personal problems with Vatican II is the hopeful languages popes have used in retrospect. It doesn’t seem to correlate with the reality of the situation. Anyone who has read the apostolic letter before the prologue of the Catechism of the Catholic Church can see this discrepancy. The brief letter of John Paul II communicates a great optimism for the positive fruits of the Second Council; however, we see that Mass attendance has plummeted across the world uniformly, catechesis has become a farce in many places (ironically ), most Catholics I’ve met don’t know the first thing about Baptism, and so on.

Perhaps all the terrible problems for the Church merely happened after Vatican II by coincidence with the secularisation of culture. This being the case, the optimistic language used by JP II still hints at a certain renewal that might have stemmed the tide of secularisation. Obviously, the Church has totally failed to do this for 40 years. The idea of letting in “fresh air” apparently allowed secularism to enter the Church, when true theological fresh air would have built up defenses against it. What a shame that all of Vatican II’s documents are so sensible… but the subsequent events have been so bad it’s perplexing.

None of the changes commonly associated with Vatican II were even suggested by Vatican II:

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

Second, the Sexual Revolution of the late 1960s, followed by Adult Bookstores, followed by legalized abortion, followed by No-Fault Divorce, helped the breakdown of the family. Dissidents inside and outside the Church did not help either.

Things are turning around now.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tjt3]

I hope and pray things turn around soon. I think though itll be a little like closing the barn door after the horses are out. We were warned about secularism however, sadly it seems some hierarchy and orders have seemed to embrace it as part of change. Whatever happened to the Encyclical "Pascendi Domeninci Gregis" by St. Pius X in which he defined progressivism as modernism and in 1907 declared it a heresy and also pointed out that it was taking hold of the contemporary mind and possession of Western civilization? I believe Pope Benedict XVI may have tried to reign some of the secularism in with certain Encyclicals which I havent yet read that requested orders to return to their roots. I could be
wrong however I believe some of the Ecumenicalism and reaching out to other religions
may have been an attempt at reunification as I do see a trend of large groups of Anglican
Catholics coming into the Roman Church. Recently there was an article at Belmont College
on the Oblate site about a mass unification from across the country and this has already
happened in large numbers in England. So if this is the case and we have to adjust our
practices and ceremonies to accomodate, all this may very well be the movement of the
Holy Spirit, as the Holy Spirit moves where the Holy Spirit wills to accomplish a plan of God
that we have yet to perceive. Blessings and Peace.

 

[laszlo]

The brief letter of John Paul II communicates a great optimism for the positive fruits of the Second Council; however, we see that Mass attendance has plummeted across the world uniformly, catechesis has become a farce in many places (ironically ), most Catholics I’ve met don’t know the first thing about Baptism, and so on.

What is your evidence, what would happen without Vatican II and the modernization (aggiornamento) of the Church.

The only real comparison is the attendance level (per priest) for the new and traditional forms of the Mass. What does your statistic say?

If not this, what is your reasoning that the shrinking attendance is the consequence of the aggiornameno, and the popes are wrong praising that?