Stop Blaming Vatican II

[whatistrue]

Why did we see an explosion in the number of Catholic marriage annulments right after Vatican II ?

Assuming for the sake of argument that there really was an “explosion” in the number of annulments (which is a separate discussion), could it be because there was a greater acceptance in the wider society of divorce as an option for a bad marriage, which would have affected Catholics as well regardless of VII or no VII, combined with a deeper understanding of what makes for valid consent?

 

[Crusader13]

In some instances the documents do reaffirm our traditional Catholic principles, very directly. In others, the language is confusing.

In terms of salvation, many laity and clergy, have pointed to Lumen gentium, as the document that shows that Jews and Muslims are saved outside of needing Jesus or the Church.

Yet, the document itself does not say that, in fact, not even Nostra Aetate says that. Yet, as I mentioned in other discussions, MANY people will defend that belief by stating “Vatican II says…”

And they’ll go on quoting these documents as a way to show that Judaism and Islam can be salvific. Which we know they are not. Yet, they’ll connect these documents with invincible ignorance and come to that conclusion. Which was never taught prior to Vatican II.

 

[AlNg]

could it be because there was a greater acceptance in the wider society of divorce as an option for a bad marriage, which would have affected Catholics as well regardless of VII or no VII,

Yes, partly and for a small percentage of the increase. But not for the huge explosion in the number. It is true that the number of divorces in society at large increased somewhat during this period, but the increase was very much smaller than the increase seen in Catholic marriage annulments, which by the way require a civil divorce. Further, we saw a serious decline in the number of nuns and other religious and an increase in the number of scandals right after Vatican II. And a decline in Mass attendance and as well an increase in the acceptance by Catholics of artificial birth control, same sex marriage, and premarital sex. And were there Catholic dioceses declaring bankruptcy before Vatican II ?
Why try to avoid what His Holiness Pope Paul said: “… We would say that, through some mysterious crack—no, it’s not mysterious; through some crack, the smoke of Satan has entered the Church of God. There is doubt, uncertainty, problems, unrest, dissatisfaction, confrontation…… It was thought that, after the Council, sunny days would come for the history of the Church. Nevertheless, what came were days of clouds, of storms, of darkness, of searching, of uncertainty …"

 

[whatistrue]

It is true that the number of divorces in society at large increased somewhat during this period,

I don’t have the numbers in front of me, and frankly it isn’t such a burning question in my mind that I will go and seek them out, but the impression I have (having lived through the period) is that the increase in the US at least was much more than “somewhat”. And all of those other things did happen and are happening to essentially every church no matter the name on the front, as has been pointed out on this very forum more times than I care to remember, so it really can’t be the “fault” of VII.

 

[MikeInVA]

In terms of salvation, many laity and clergy, have pointed to Lumen gentium, as the document that shows that Jews and Muslims are saved outside of needing Jesus or the Church.

Which contradicts John 14:6 and much of Church teaching.

 

[commenter]

In some instances the documents do reaffirm our traditional Catholic principles, very directly. In others, the language is confusing.

In terms of salvation, many laity and clergy, have pointed to Lumen gentium, as the document that shows that Jews and Muslims are saved outside of needing Jesus or the Church.

Yet, the document itself does not say that, in fact, not even Nostra Aetate says that. Yet, as I mentioned in other discussions, MANY people will defend that belief by stating “Vatican II says…”

And they’ll go on quoting these documents as a way to show that Judaism and Islam can be salvific. Which we know they are not. Yet, they’ll connect these documents with invincible ignorance and come to that conclusion. Which was never taught prior to Vatican II.

• If V2 aims at the target 100 times, a few shots will be off, a few misused.
• Misuse of V2 is much less common now than in the 1970’s.
• I haven’t seen reports of bishops regretting the docs they passed.
• Other than the document on Liturgy, most docs simply reflected the fact that changes were already underway in Church and society. They tried to get a handle on change and direct it. They did an imperfect job because they, nor anyone else, couldn’t predict the future.
• Dissenters in 2020 are relying on CNN, not V2, and would not be affected by a rewrite or clarification by the Magisterium, which they reject.

 

[commenter]

the smoke of Satan has entered the Church of God

He didn’t say this was a result of the Council. If he thought that, he likely would have taken different action besides just working for proper implemention.

I think the Smoke of Satan was building up under the radar screen for a few decades. A lot of things were being circulated unpublished, a lot of things were taught quietly in seminaries.

I knew women who were in the convent before V2, it wasn’t all the Bells of St Mary’s. The world was changing rapidly after WW2, Pope Pius 12 saw some of “the Smoke” , (and some good things) coming. He tried his best in one way, V2 tried their best in other ways. Neither was totally successful or unsuccessful.

(It is puzzling there is an obsession in CAF to attribute everything to V2, and nothing to the man who was pope till 1958).

 

[Motherwit]

otjm:

One of the reasons you fail to see missals at an OF (and in the parishes I have been to in the last 30 years, all have had missals in the pews) is that the Mass is in English and the priest most generally has a microphone.

I use a missal that my wife bought for me when I was received into the Church. My wife uses a missal I bought for her as a present early on in our relationship. I use mine mostly so I can follow along with the readings and look at the commentary. I also use it partly because I am new to the Mass and need to read some of the parts said by the Faithful (like the Creed) because I don’t have them memorized completely yet. I also see a fair number of others using a personal one or one of the booklets available at the entrance with that day’s readings in it, but I also see many who apparently have it all memorized as they are definitely saying the responses but don’t refer to a printed or electronic text.

Don’t feel too bad. I’m still having to follow a text for the Confiteor and Creed even though it’s been 9 years since they were altered. I still keep defaulting to previous wording without the text. The Gloria I’m fine with because it’s sung and that seems to stick.

 

[AlNg]

He didn’t say this was a result of the Council.

No?
" It was thought that, after the Council, sunny days would come for the history of the Church. Nevertheless, what came were days of clouds, of storms, of darkness, of searching, of uncertainty … “”

Can’t blame it on VII.

Who or what do you blame for the abandonment of the Hays movie code in the USA ? How did that come about?

 

[JSRG]

MarkRome:

Can’t blame it on VII.

How did Vatican II and the spirit of Vatican II help support traditional family life? Why did we see an explosion in the number of Catholic marriage annulments right after Vatican II ?

Did we see it “right after” Vatican II? Let’s look at the numbers you posted:

The number of Catholic marriage annulments has increased dramatically after Vatican II, especially in the USA.
1929 - 10 marriage annulments per year.
1993 - more than 50,000 marriage annulments per year.
Recently it has been about 30,000 marriage annulments per year, but fewer Catholics are getting married. Since Vatican II, more Catholics are living together without getting married.

These are numbers for 1929 and 1993. Vatican II occurred in the 1960’s. These numbers do not demonstrate that “right after” Vatican II there was a massive increase because the only post-Vatican II number you give comes from about 30 years afterwards!

But I did attempt to do a little research on the numbers. According to this article:
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9607

"In 1970, the bishops of the United States obtained permission from the Holy See to modify canonical procedures in the adjudication of marriage cases. One judge, and not three, could render a decision, and cases could be heard in the diocese of the person seeking the annulment; in addition, appeal of a declaration of nullity to another court became discretionary rather than obligatory. The latter provision lapsed with the promulgation of the new Code of Canon Law in 1983, which expanded the grounds of invalid consent: “they are incapable of contracting marriage…who are not capable of assuming the essential obligations of matrimony due to causes of a psychic nature” (canon 1095).

Partly for these reasons, the number of annulments granted annually in the United States soared from 338 in 1968, to 28,918 in 1974, to a peak of 63,933 in 1991. By 2004 the number had fallen to 46,330, and it fell even further, to 35,009, in 2007–a remarkable decline of 24 percent in three years."

If this is accurate, the increase would be better applied to the adjustment in canonical procedures in the US, not Vatican II. This is further attested to when we consider the fact that, as mentioned in that article, the United States has 5.9% of the world’s Catholics but 60% of the world’s annulments (or at least it did in 2007, things may have changed).

To be fair, you did note “especially in the USA” but given that above figures it would appear that’s a bit of an understatement, and that if you were to remove the USA from the equation the rate would go down considerably.

 

[Crusader13]

• Misuse of V2 is much less common now than in the 1970’s.

Because there’s been a push back of proper catechesis against the erroneous teachings.

Other than the document on Liturgy, most docs simply reflected the fact that changes were already underway in Church and society. They tried to get a handle on change and direct it. They did an imperfect job because they, nor anyone else, couldn’t predict the future.

Societal changes probably. Doctrinal changes, no way. Yet, these documents are THE documents most often cited by individuals when putting forth an incorrect teaching about Church doctrine.

Why is that?

Just within the last year Bp. Barron responded to Ben Shapiro, in regards to a question about his salvation as a Jew, and he told him “Vatican II says…” and then he proceeded to tell him about the privileged route to Heaven.

These statements and these teaching have nothing to do with dissenters quoting CNN, but instead are a real byproduct of deccades of misguided beliefs, based in large part on what “Vatican II says…”

 

[commenter]

commenter:

He didn’t say this was a result of the Council.

No?
" It was thought that, after the Council, sunny days would come for the history of the Church. Nevertheless, what came were days of clouds, of storms, of darkness, of searching, of uncertainty … “”

Can’t blame it on VII.

Who or what do you blame for the abandonment of the Hays movie code in the USA ? How did that come about?

1. Pope Paul did not say it was a result of the Council.
2. Yes people were optimistic in the 1960’s. they were optimistic in the 1950s too. Does that prove Pius 12 caused the problems?
3. Arguably the Church of 1970 still was more influenced by momentum if Pius XI, Pius 12, John 23 than by V2.
4. The Hayes Code was mostly undermined by early 60s.

 

[Motherwit]

MarkRome:

Can’t blame it on VII.

Who or what do you blame for the abandonment of the Hays movie code in the USA ? How did that come about?

That issue is studied and discussed in the context of constitutional law and it’s role in censorship and free speech. Unfortunately there came a time where the Constitution became more important than religion.

 

[otjm]

To which I would add, AINg never talks about what percentage of all Catholic marriages the increase in decrees of nullity represented when the Code changed, nor the buildup of divorces prior to that due to the change in state laws starting in 1969 to no-fault divorce - or what impact that had on allowing people in sham marriages to resolve matters…

In essence it amounts to a view of the sacrament of marriage to be "they both showed up, they both took their vows, so obviously they were valid sacramental marriages. That is not a position the Church holds now, nor was it the position the Church held before the Code change.

 

[commenter]

Just within the last year Bp. Barron responded to Ben Shapiro, in regards to a question about his salvation as a Jew, and he told him “Vatican II says…” and then he proceeded to tell him about the privileged route to Heaven.

These statements and these teaching have nothing to do with dissenters quoting CNN, but instead are a real byproduct of deccades of misguided beliefs, based in large part on what “Vatican II says…”

Bishop Barron is not misusing V2, he’s using it. Do you think his use is inconsistent with the intent of the bishops at V2? Didn’t some of them take positions similar to Barron after V2 in their diocese? Did any V2 bishops take positions opposed to Barron in their diocese after V2?

You might not agree with the content of the document, but that’s different from a document that is vulnerable to misinterpretation or misuse. Is Bishop Barron’,s interpretation different from how earlier bishops interpreted it?

 

[Crusader13]

Bishop Barron is not misusing V2, he’s using it. Do you think his use is inconsistent with the intent of the bishops at V2? Didn’t some of them take positions similar to Barron after V2 in their diocese? Did any V2 bishops take positions opposed to Barron in their diocese after V2?

You might not agree with the content of the document, but that’s different from a document that is vulnerable to misinterpretation or misuse. Is Bishop Barron’,s interpretation different from how earlier bishops interpreted it?

Yes! That’s the whole point! There’s too much talking out of both sides of their mouth.

You have certain people saying, Vatican II didn’t change doctrine and Vatican II never said other religions are salvific.

Yet, other people give similar statements that you just gave. Clearly suggesting that men like Bp. Barron are only teaching what Vatican II taught.

Well it can’t be both. So if you’re going to tell me that Vatican II now recognizes the salvific nature of other religions and that was the intent of the council, then there is a serious problem because that is in direct contrast to what the tradition of the church has always taught.

If you say that the council never intended to change doctrine and they aren’t recognizing the salvific nature of other religions, then it’s a certain group of people that are misinterpreting the council. Either way it’s a murky issue that needs to be clarified.

 

[commenter]

commenter:

Bishop Barron is not misusing V2, he’s using it. Do you think his use is inconsistent with the intent of the bishops at V2? Didn’t some of them take positions similar to Barron after V2 in their diocese? Did any V2 bishops take positions opposed to Barron in their diocese after V2?

You might not agree with the content of the document, but that’s different from a document that is vulnerable to misinterpretation or misuse. Is Bishop Barron’,s interpretation different from how earlier bishops interpreted it?

Yes! That’s the whole point! There’s too much talking out of both sides of their mouth.

You have certain people saying, Vatican II didn’t change doctrine and Vatican II never said other religions are salvific.

Yet, other people give similar statements that you just gave. Clearly suggesting that men like Bp. Barron are only teaching what Vatican II taught.

Well it can’t be both. So if you’re going to tell me that Vatican II now recognizes the salvific nature of other religions and that was the intent of the council, then there is a serious problem because that is in direct contrast to what the tradition of the church has always taught.

If you say that the council never intended to change doctrine and they aren’t recognizing the salvific nature of other religions, then it’s a certain group of people that are misinterpreting the council. Either way it’s a murky issue that needs to be clarified.

There’s a third position here. V2 developed (not adding new) doctrine in a few areas. The document’s not murky. If it were, bishops who were there would have repudiated not just the dissenters but also the non dissenters, such as Barron’s position which is not new to him.

Barron based his response on a dogmatic constitution, document of very high authority. The document itself isn’t murky. It didn’t have an unintended loophole, it clearly intended to open a door that bishops intended people to go through.

I can’t picture a document having higher authority, but cite one.

 

[c4csp]

Interesting. The only thing that still has me flummoxed is how does changing the mass to vernacular and facing the people give to God? The holy sacrifice of mass is 100% for God. I do not see how the mass change has put God at center. I mean it seems that mass change was for the people, but the sacrifice of mass is for God, not the people. Then we see tabernacles being moved off the altar to side chapels, etc., it just makes one wonder the justification that these changes were made for God because it sure seems like they were made for man.

 

[c4csp]

True, but those changes to the mass, were they for man or for God?

 

[c4csp]

Ok. Did the Holy Spirit intend for communion to be received on the hand and crumbs of Jesus’ precious body to fall to the floor and be trampled upon? I know Padre Pio received eucharist kneeling on tongue when not celebrant, even with his consecrated hands. Saint Padre Pio had stigmata and bilocated as well. Things just don’t add up for me.