The fall of the Church after Vatican II

[Ockham]

In reading the Second Council documents, the word “ambiguous” comes to mind. Although there was no pressing need to call the Council if we trust the Holy Spirit and papal authority then John XXIII must have had his reasons. However, previous popes before him found no definitive reason and concluded the risk was too great. Perhaps some fresh air was needed in our Church and a formal renewal was justified. Maybe John XXIII saw storm clouds brewing in the post-WWII world and wanted to sail to clearer skies.

Many people claim the fifty years after a council are chaotic. If this is true then half of the Church’s history has been chaos (21 councils x 50 = 1,050 years). Pope Benedict has said that we need to re-interpret the documents which I take as meaning they were indeed misinterpreted these past forty years. Hopefully within the next ten years we get our religion back. Most changes done in the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ were unScriptural and a break with Tradition.

My understanding is that the Council was called to attract more Protestants back to the Church. By doing so we made ourselves more like them and the Leading Indicators proves how that worked out against us. The flaw in this approach is that if Protestantism is heretical then moving the Church towards them defeats the purpose and endangers those within it. You don’t attract someone by morphing into them, you remain true to yourself and stay vigilant.

As Paul VI said, once the window was opened to let air in the smoke of Satan entered the Church instead. The ambiguity of V2 gave the modernist forces the opportunity they needed to reak havoc within the Church. Instead of setting a new course, perhaps the right decision would have been to batten the hatches to ride out the post-modern storm.

We are the unfortunate generation living through the post-Vatican II chaos, but if we remain true to our faith and persevere then hopefully our struggle inspires future generations. I pray that our children see the mess ambiguity and apathy created and learn from our mistakes. Christ is the way, truth, and life, thus unchanging. Adaptation, improvisation, and personal interpretation are paths away from Him and his flock has strayed too far. Changing His Church threatens us all.

My question to the theologian would be given the post-Vatican II chaos, post modern world of secularism, materialism, and culture of death (abortion, stem-cell research, ethnic cleansing, etc) how should the Church proceed?

 

[Ockham]

Do you have any close friends or family members that are Protestants? I do. In fact i used to be a Fundamentalist Evangelical Protestant myself. ANd I can tell you that they are NOT exposed to the teachings of the Church. They are exposed to misrepresentations of the Church. They are taought that we hold Mary at the same level as Jesus. They are taught that we believe that the one time sacrifice was insufficent, so we must “re-sacrifice” Christ in the Eucharist. Some of the more extreme gorups say we are a Pagan cult that participates in sun worship. What they reject, is a gross misrepresentation of Holy Mother Church.

Where do the Fundamentalists get these bizarre ideas from, the pulpit? I’ve chatted with people who make these accusations and I’m utterly astonished at the level of bigotry and near hatred. Indeed, they are in the dark and I wonder who is keeping them there.

 

[CWBetts]

Where do the Fundamentalists get these bizarre ideas from, the pulpit? I’ve chatted with people who make these accusations and I’m utterly astonished at the level of bigotry and near hatred. Indeed, they are in the dark and I wonder who is keeping them there.

The pulpit. Bizarre rantings found in anti-Catholic literature. Wierd videos on YouTube. Here is a report CAtholic answers has on one publisher of the haste-filled garbage:

catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p1.asp

I kmow this is true because I used to buy into it. In fact, even when i was spiritually adrift, after I had left the church that had put these anti-Catholic ideas in my head, I still was not seriously considering conversion to Catholicism. Why? Because in my mind i did not see Catholicism as Christianity. I didn’t know any better. And that misrepresentation of Catholicism is why most Modern protestants cannot truly be called heretics. Until I started going to RCIA, watching EWTN and listening to Catholic Radio, I knever knew the Truth of Holy Mother Church. Protestants that leve the Church can be called heretics, but not those born into Protestantism and choose to follow the faith of their parents.

 

[Ganyssa]

The pulpit. Bizarre rantings found in anti-Catholic literature. Wierd videos on YouTube. Here is a report CAtholic answers has on one publisher of the haste-filled garbage:

catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p1.asp

I kmow this is true because I used to buy into it. In fact, even when i was spiritually adrift, after I had left the church that had put these anti-Catholic ideas in my head, I still was not seriously considering conversion to Catholicism. Why? Because in my mind i did not see Catholicism as Christianity. I didn’t know any better. And that misrepresentation of Catholicism is why most Modern protestants cannot truly be called heretics. Until I started going to RCIA, watching EWTN and listening to Catholic Radio, I knever knew the Truth of Holy Mother Church. Protestants that leve the Church can be called heretics, but not those born into Protestantism and choose to follow the faith of their parents.

As someone also previously Fundamentalist, I was also exposed to anti-Catholicism both from the pulpit, and family members who esposed what they had heard from the pulpit all their lives. Now that I have found the Truth, I have many family members trying very hard to disuade me. I can honestly say that I never denied the Truth of the Church. I had never heard the Truth. Now that I have I’m coming home.

 

[wisdomseeker]

First, I defer to the wisdom of Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI. Second, clarifying that prejudice of any kind is intolerble, and that the crimes inflicted on Jews for the past 2000 years in unconciable, especially considering that Christianity is a sect that grew out of Judaism. There are still some Traditionalists who cling to anti-Semitism. We must also consider that modern Protestants are not heretics, but schismatics. One must be exposed to the fullness of truth before they can reject it, true? One can hardly blame VII for the decline in vocations. After, all there has been a decline in the Protestant Clergy as well. Or is VII to blame for that too? Kepp in mind that every council has a period of confusion among the laity that follows, sometimes lasting more than 50 years. It has been 40 since it ended. To say that the Church “fell” as a result of VII is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty. I could write more, but I don’t have the time to reproduce my senior paper.

the confusion came not from the laity but from the enterpreters of VII. for Catholics follows the Church and not the other way around. Catholics do not understand the changes because it was not suppost to have happened. the CC must keep the faith and the Liturgy that was set from the beginning. this past Easter at my Parish, i heard many complaining about the confusion, the people were loud as if they were at a party or something. pictures were taken when it is forbiden. why is that? the House of God is to be held in high standard and people is to be reverent. of course i believe that many are non Catholics and probably does not know how to behave in the CC. still i believe that the priest should told the people to quiet down and pray in silence but no one said anything. it is the lack of leadership within the Church that is causing the confusion. letting the people do whatever. this is not the CC i know.

 

[CWBetts]

the confusion came not from the laity but from the enterpreters of VII. for Catholics follows the Church and not the other way around. Catholics do not understand the changes because it was not suppost to have happened. the CC must keep the faith and the Liturgy that was set from the beginning. this past Easter at my Parish, i heard many complaining about the confusion, the people were loud as if they were at a party or something. pictures were taken when it is forbiden. why is that? the House of God is to be held in high standard and people is to be reverent. of course i believe that many are non Catholics and probably does not know how to behave in the CC. still i believe that the priest should told the people to quiet down and pray in silence but no one said anything. it is the lack of leadership within the Church that is causing the confusion. letting the people do whatever. this is not the CC i know.

Do the research. After every council is a period of confusion. EVERY ONE. The confusion in the Chrurch right now is normal. It concerns people because ecumenical councils are uncommon. Vatican I was in 1879. Trent was 300 years before that. You say VII wasn;t supposed to happen. Evidence please? You can’t just spout something as outlandish as that without something to back it up. The sooner that traditionalists accept Vatican II as a legitimate council, the sooner unity can start to be restored to the Church. I am not saying liberals have not misinterpereted the council. That group must be dealt with. But again, it is not the fault of the council itself, but the fault of those who have misinterpereted it.

 

[Ockham]

I’ve read that a couple post-Vatican I popes studied the need for a second council and decided against it. Without a pressing need like a crusade, Luther, or some other direct challenge, many people wonder why V2 was necessary. No doctrine came out of it and indeed quite a lot of chaos. Trent codified the Mass, but a ‘spirit of Vatican II’ dramatically changed it. So this isn’t a traditionalist vs modernist or conservative vs liberal polemic debate, it is the integrity of the Church itself.

 

[CWBetts]

I’ve read that a couple post-Vatican I popes studied the need for a second council and decided against it. Without a pressing need like a crusade, Luther, or some other direct challenge, many people wonder why V2 was necessary. No doctrine came out of it and indeed quite a lot of chaos. Trent codified the Mass, but a ‘spirit of Vatican II’ dramatically changed it. So this isn’t a traditionalist vs modernist or conservative vs liberal polemic debate, it is the integrity of the Church itself.

Simply put it was needed because Pope John XXIII saw the massive revolutionary changes in the world on the horizon. The world was a powderkeg waiting to explode. Thr need for the council was to educate the Laity on how to deal with the rapidly changing world. That’s why the council was pastroral rather than dogmatic. Why do you feel that you have the authority to pass judgement on whether or not the council was needed? Truth be told it is a moot point. It happened. It is binding. Instea of bemaoning the “fall of the Church” perhaps energy could better be spent helping to restore catechesis, which wil result in a drastic decline in abuses.

 

[pnewton]

Instead of bemoaning the “fall of the Church” …

I see I am not the only one that found the title of this thread objectionable.

 

[Lisa44]

In fact i used to be a Fundamentalist Evangelical Protestant myself. ANd I can tell you that they are NOT exposed to the teachings of the Church…

That I can believe.

Why would a Protestant church teach Catholic doctrine?

The pulpit. Bizarre rantings found in anti-Catholic literature. Wierd videos on YouTube. Here is a report CAtholic answers has on one publisher of the haste-filled garbage:

catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p1.asp

I kmow this is true because I used to buy into it. In fact, even when i was spiritually adrift, after I had left the church that had put these anti-Catholic ideas in my head, I still was not seriously considering conversion to Catholicism. Why? Because in my mind i did not see Catholicism as Christianity. I didn’t know any better. And that misrepresentation of Catholicism is why most Modern protestants cannot truly be called heretics. Until I started going to RCIA, watching EWTN and listening to Catholic Radio, I knever knew the Truth of Holy Mother Church. Protestants that leve the Church can be called heretics, but not those born into Protestantism and choose to follow the faith of their parents.

The Protestant Church is heretical. You admit it yourself. If you follow those heresies you are also a heretic.

You have not completely entered the Catholic Church yet if you hold the belief that Protestants are not heretics. Try confessing that to your Priest and see what he says.

Do the research. After every council is a period of confusion. EVERY ONE. The confusion in the Chrurch right now is normal. … But again, it is not the fault of the council itself, but the fault of those who have misinterpereted it.

You conclude falsely.

I ask confuse them at NONE churches blasphemy again!

Oh, well, its your fault you didn’t understand my last sentence. You misinterpret me.

No, in fact, my sentence was not clear, therefore, it was left open to interpretation. Not the other way around.

 

[RyanML]

The pulpit. Bizarre rantings found in anti-Catholic literature. Wierd videos on YouTube. Here is a report CAtholic answers has on one publisher of the haste-filled garbage:

catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p1.asp

I kmow this is true because I used to buy into it. In fact, even when i was spiritually adrift, after I had left the church that had put these anti-Catholic ideas in my head, I still was not seriously considering conversion to Catholicism. Why? Because in my mind i did not see Catholicism as Christianity. I didn’t know any better. And that misrepresentation of Catholicism is why most Modern protestants cannot truly be called heretics. Until I started going to RCIA, watching EWTN and listening to Catholic Radio, I knever knew the Truth of Holy Mother Church. Protestants that leve the Church can be called heretics, but not those born into Protestantism and choose to follow the faith of their parents.

It is not inappropriate to call a protestant a heretic. However, we must distinguish between material and formal heresy. I am sure the majority of protestants are material heretics.

If we read the documents of Vatican II then it is obvious that what the Council Fathers intended did not happen. If we are following the wisdom of the post Conciliar popes then we must agree with Paul VI that the “smoke of Satan” did indeed enter the Church. The solution is not a repudiation of the Council but its genuine implementation. The “spirit of Vatican II” needs to be exorcized from the Church and replaced with a true spirit of reform. I believe, I hope, this is what our present holy father is working towards.

 

[diggerdomer]

I’ve read that a couple post-Vatican I popes studied the need for a second council and decided against it. Without a pressing need like a crusade, Luther, or some other direct challenge, many people wonder why V2 was necessary. No doctrine came out of it and indeed quite a lot of chaos. Trent codified the Mass, but a ‘spirit of Vatican II’ dramatically changed it. So this isn’t a traditionalist vs modernist or conservative vs liberal polemic debate, it is the integrity of the Church itself.

I’d disagree strongly that “no doctrine” came out of it. There is a vast amount of teaching that came out of it. Maybe we just differ on what we mean by “doctrine.” Look at the Catechism, how often it refers to teachings of Vatican II.

Integrity of the Church itself? I agree, from the perspective that if individuals feel free to accept or not the teaching and validity of an Ecumenical Council (there’s no higher form of teaching authority in the Church) then yes, the integrity of the Church is severely challenged or compromised. Historically, and lamentably, schism often followed Ecumenical Councils as not everyone accepted them.

 

[diggerdomer]

I see I am not the only one that found the title of this thread objectionable.

Amen

 

[diggerdomer]

You have not completely entered the Catholic Church yet if you hold the belief that Protestants are not heretics. Try confessing that to your Priest and see what he says.

I am a cradle Catholic, went to Catholic schools all my life, never stopped practicing the faith, and I don’t believe all Protestants are heretics.

I’ve asked a number of priests, they agree. Have yet to find one who disagrees.

Wonder where we get a wacky idea like that?

I ask confuse them at NONE churches blasphemy again!

Sorry, no idea what that means, can you clarify?

 

[Ockham]

I’d disagree strongly that “no doctrine” came out of it. There is a vast amount of teaching that came out of it. Maybe we just differ on what we mean by “doctrine.”

Here’s what I mean by doctrine:

Nicea I: Gospels
Nicea II: Veneration of Sacred Objects
Lateran I: Priest Celebacy
Lateran III: Papal Elections
Constance: John Wycliff Heresies
Trent: Lutheran Heresies; Codified the Mass
Vatican I: Papal Infallibility

Vatican II? Ecumenism? Has one schismatic church returned?

The documents of Vatican II are all very well and good albeit viciously misinterpreted these past forty years. However, as a pastoral council as opposed to doctrinal, the goodness of Vatican II could have been given to us by catechisis or a book like “Spirit Of The Liturgy”.

 

[Ockham]

I am a cradle Catholic, went to Catholic schools all my life, never stopped practicing the faith, and I don’t believe all Protestants are heretics.

I’ve asked a number of priests, they agree. Have yet to find one who disagrees.

Wonder where we get a wacky idea like that?

Sorry, no idea what that means, can you clarify?

Anecdotal evidence on full display.

Jesus said He is the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Him. He gave Peter the keys to heaven with the authority to bind and loose. Upon Peter Christ built His Church. He instituted the Blessed Sacrament and told us He is the bread of life and with it we shall not die.

Perhaps your priests need to brush up on Scripture. How’s their Tradition?

 

[RyanML]

I’ve asked a number of priests, they agree. Have yet to find one who disagrees.
Wonder where we get a wacky idea like that?

Protestants are heretics, materially or formally. The teaching of the Church on this matter has not changed. That does not mean we need to go around preaching at protestants and name calling. This would not be very effective evangelization.

 

[diggerdomer]

Here’s what I mean by doctrine:

Nicea I: Gospels
Nicea II: Veneration of Sacred Objects
Lateran I: Priest Celebacy
Lateran III: Papal Elections
Constance: John Wycliff Heresies
Trent: Lutheran Heresies; Codified the Mass
Vatican I: Papal Infallibility

Thanks, we probably are using the term slightly differently, though you are using the term more broadly than I thought, which is more the way I think I use it. Vatican II is of course the 21st ecumenical council. They all taught. The examples you note are probably deserving of some clarification but this thread may not be the time or place. Even the ones you noted above cover a wide variety of “doctrine” (e.g. priestly celibacy is a Roman Catholic --not simply “Catholic” – discipline that the Church can change; it’s not divine law. Ditto for the Papal election process (which Benedict XVI himself has revised since becoming Pope). There are so many many more teachings that came from the 21 councils.

However, as a pastoral council as opposed to doctrinal

I’ve heard people use that, but never have come across anything the Church says that distinguishes ecumenical councils into “pastoral” and “doctrinal.” Can you help with any Church reference that clarifies this?

My understanding is that an ecumenical council is just that…ecumenical…and the Church doesn’t further define/distinguish between various types. Vatican II produced both pastoral constitutions (acutally, only one) and dogmatic constitutions (3) in addition to the decrees and declarations which don’t include any such adjectives in their titles. I certainly don’t tend interpret the words “declaration” or “decree” as meaning “suggestion” or “just an idea for what it’s worth.”

So if one were to use these types of distinctions, seems to me that Vatican II would be “dogmatic” because it issued more dogmatic constitutions than pastoral ones.

Have the teachings of Vatican II been misinterpreted? No doubt. Not by everyone, always, and everywhere, but hey we’re human.

 

[diggerdomer]

Protestants are heretics, materially or formally. The teaching of the Church on this matter has not changed. That does not mean we need to go around preaching at protestants and name calling. This would not be very effective evangelization.

To help those of us who are confused, can you refer us to current Church teaching? Does the Catechism address this?

Thanks!

And I DEFINITELY agree with the name-calling issue. Not only because it’s not effective evangelization imho it’s also simply uncharitable.

 

[RyanML]

To help those of us who are confused, can you refer us to current Church teaching? Does the Catechism address this?

Thanks!

And I DEFINITELY agree with the name-calling issue. Not only because it’s not effective evangelization imho it’s also simply uncharitable.

This article from EWTN may be clearer:

“The Church’s moral theology has always distinguished between objective or material sin and formal sin. The person who holds something contrary to the Catholic faith is materially a heretic. They possess the matter of heresy, theological error. Thus, prior to the Second Vatican Council it was quite common to speak of non-Catholic Christians as heretics, since many of their doctrines are objectively contrary to Catholic teaching. This theological distinction remains true, though in keeping with the pastoral charity of the Council today we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy. Thus, the person who is objectively in heresy is not formally guilty of heresy if 1) their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and 2) they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth. This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing before God.”

ewtn.com/expert/answers/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm

I think it’s important to note that the practice of not calling protestants heretics is pastoral in nature not doctrinal and so it is perfectly acceptable for a Catholic to refer to protestants as heretics, even if not politically correct. The only real problem I see in generalizing all protestants as heretics is that we might fall into the error of implying they are all guilty of heresy. As the article points out, being a heretic and being guilty of heresy are two different things. God bless!