The Fruits of Vatican II

[commenter]

Your posts underestimate how wildly unprepared the 1960 Church was for the secular challenges both external and internal. The powerful heretics and similar who wreaked havoc in the late 60s and 70s were all formed and educated in the pre Council era.

The momentum of Council of Trent was still mostly in effect for a good generation after the V2 Council, in hearts and minds. Well intentioned bishops and religious superiors - Trent trained and formed - found their Pius 12 era solutions not really effective in the new challenges.

Today, internally the Church in the US is probably better than in the 1970s and 80s. But externally she has much stronger enemies in government, Media, Education.

So, partial credit for V2.

 

[Genesis315]

But this goes to my point. The Council failed to strengthen the Church in light of these circumstances, when that was its whole point as a “pastoral” Council. The Council Fathers utterly failed to read the signs of the times and contributed to, rather than mitigated, the problems.

And bishops didn’t stick with their prior formation. Maybe this NYTimes article from 1964 is being deceptive, but it seems accurate to me–it just deals with US bishops, but the experience seems common elsehwere.

More than one [US bishop] has admitted that he finds himself voting for changes in ecclesiastical practices and doctrinal interpretations he would have deemed totally unacceptable only two years ago.
…
The “progressive” changes wrought in the American hierarchy in the past two years are, of course, due initially to Pope John, who made aggiornamento an acceptable idea as well as a universal word. Yet other factors have played a role. One is the day‐by‐day exposure to new ideas. And a major one is the bishops’ new concept of their own role in the church—the feeling of united responsibility for the universal church, affirmed theologically in the doctrine of collegiality. No longer need the bishops be preoccupied with anticipating the Curia’s communications.

After three sessions of daily meetings with fellow bishops from other lands, a swelling confidence in their own ability to discern the good of the church, the airing of many long pent‐up frustrations and doubts about traditional practices, exposure to the thought of the best and most forward-looking theologians in the Catholic world, the encouragement of two Popes, a groundswell of critical comment from parish priests, nuns and the articulate laity, the comfort of one another’s company, and the privacy afforded in a city where 2,300 other prelates are gathered and one bishop more or less goes unnoticed — with all this, plus the help of the Holy Spirit, which the bishops themselves would put first, the American bishops have found themselves.

The big problem facing them now is that they are ahead of both their priests and their people. Normally, a hierarchy lags behind the intellectual leaders in the church. New ideas come from below and with great difficulty are recognized by the authorities. This process has been reversed during Vatican II. Now, new ideas have to be presented by the bishops themselves, who will certainly run into many of the same difficulties that traditionally have faced other forerunners.

Vatican II Re‐educates The American Bishops (Published 1964)

J Cogley on role of US prelates and their growing influence in council debates; most now considered 'progressives' and ahead of their priests and people in desire for change; illus

www.nytimes.com

The same bishops who participated in the Council came back and imposed changes on priests and people who didn’t ask for it, emptying the pews, rectories, and seminaries leaving some devout souls and those that were enthusiastic about the novelty.

 

[Jbrady]

Post-WWII Catholicism was on top of its game and actually had more credibility than ever.

Are you kidding? Not to minimize the heroic actions of some Catholics during that time, on the whole, Post-WWII Catholicism had lost a great deal of credibility before, during and right after the war because of extensive clerical involvement with fascist governments and collaboration with the Nazis. The Nazi puppet state in Slovakia was headed by a monsignor, and the one in Croatia had strong church backing.

Even after the war, clerics like Cardinal Hudal helped countless Nazi war criminals avoid justice by helping them escape to South America or providing them with new identities.

Sorry, but describing post-WWII Catholicism as “on top of its game” and “actually having more credibility than ever” is downright delusional. The seeds if decline had been planted long before Vatican II, and, if anything, Vatican II was a bit too little, and a bit too late.

That is why Vatican II was necessary.

 

[commenter]

In the late 60s and 70s there was a whole industry of folks selling books, articles, lectures proving the Church before 1960 was a nightmare, and then everything good in Catholicism
is from V2.

Today there’s an equally dishonest crew, equally fixated on V2, proving V2 is the source of most of our troubles. They work via websites.

There’s almost a seductive attraction to find the single silver bullet.

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

Do you also think Trent failed? All of these questions could have been asked in 1620 except for the pachamama.

No. Trent did not fail. Trent was called to spear-head the Counter-Reformation and combat the heresies that had arisen in the Protestant hydra of error. The difference between Trent and Vatican II is that the former was called to defend the Faith against error, while the latter was called to “bring the church into line with the times”, something completely contrary to right reason for convoking a council.

And there were probably plenty of similar issues in Latin America and Asia that would have seen accusations of idolatry hurled at the Church.

Yes I’m sure the Catholic Church has faced accusations of idolatry in her history, however, when the pope is openly blessing the use of an idol during Mass in Churches founded upon the very labors of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul who toppled idols and converted pagans, you might want to consider that the abomination of desolation is in the holy place, and something very wrong is manifesting itself in the heart of Western Christendom. Wake up!

 

[Crusader13]

Sorry, but describing post-WWII Catholicism as “on top of its game” and “actually having more credibility than ever” is downright delusional. The seeds if decline had been planted long before Vatican II, and, if anything, Vatican II was a bit too little, and a bit too late.

That is why Vatican II was necessary.

I think it would be delusional to infer that VII was called to address clergy that were helping nazi war criminals escape to South America.

Yes the seeds of decline were sown prior to the council and one can look at certain changes and the rise of modernist ideas and theology as the mindset behind it.

I personally view the council and that time period as an attempt to soften the Church’s stance in dealing with the necessity of the Church for salvation.

The ambiguity of the documents allowed for the Church to be viewed as the preferred means of truth, but not the ONLY means.

 

[Cicada_3301]

My brother told me that with all the new saints in the Church, people tend to forget about the hundreds of older ones. Not that most people know much about the saints anyways. I think that there are far too many canonized saints in the Church. Once you have oh so many saints, people could care less if there are a few more added each year and they lose their importance. That’s just my opinion.

 

[George720]

Today there’s an equally dishonest crew, equally fixated on V2, proving V2 is the source of most of our troubles. They work via websites.

There’s almost a seductive attraction to find the single silver bullet.

You are right - The corruption is far, far more pandemic…

Pachamama is just a dead canary deep in the mines…

I went to a new (at the time) Catholic Cathedral in Oakland some time back, a huge structure, with the altar facing west or south - I don’t remember… So I asked the very artistic tour guide about the direction of the altar, and he assured me that we are not a superstitious Church anymore…

God gave us a pandemic for a reason…

To see on the outside…

What we ignore on the inside…

Lord have Mercy!

geo

 

[Crusader13]

Today there’s an equally dishonest crew, equally fixated on V2, proving V2 is the source of most of our troubles. They work via websites.

There’s almost a seductive attraction to find the single silver bullet.

I don’t think dishonest is a fair criticism. One might be inclined to disagree with their interpretations of what befell the Church after the council, but that’s not to imply they are being dishonest.

Let’s be fair, the council wasn’t picked by some traditionalists as an arbitrary reference point simply to point the finger. The council is usually the go to point because many of the changes occurred after the council closed. And when the changes began to occur the documents that were cited as their authority for doing so, were the documents of VII.

 

[AlbMagno]

“bring the church into line with the times”, something completely contrary to right reason for convoking a council.

Would you qualify Pre-VII Church to be an Early Modern Era Roman Church, product of the Council of Trent? I would.

What anti-VII people don’t get is that when they talk about an “Eternal, Heaven-like, Infallible Church sealed from the World” they are really talking about a Church as worldly as the one they criticize; very italian, very elitist, very rigid, that hid sexual abuses (because there were abuses before VII).

I am not saying that that model was completely bad, but the Church shouldn’t be judged by the model, by the mold, but by its Union with Jesus Christ, its spirituality, its catechesis, and I think the Church Fathers and the Apostles understood that very well.

Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam, as Ignatius said, things should be tested against the Gospel and the Deposit of Faith, and not against the worldly, cultural power the Church has.

 

[Jbrady]

I think it would be delusional to infer that VII was called to address clergy that were helping nazi war criminals escape to South America.

I didn’t say that, and is an inaccurate summary of what I did say.

I personally view the council and that time period as an attempt to soften the Church’s stance in dealing with the necessity of the Church for salvation.

That is one important reason. Specifically in regards to anti-semitism, which was rather common in the Church until then. VII did succeed in greatly reducing anti-semitic sentiment among Catholics, and sidelining anti-semitc clerics.

 

[StudentMI]

I just bought the first part from the FSSP bookshop.

https://fraternitypublications.com/product/the-new-saint-joseph-baltimore-catechism-no-1/

 

[Crusader13]

I didn’t say that, and is an inaccurate summary of what I did say.

Well then I apologize. That’s how I read your comments, I didn’t see the break in the point you were trying to make.

That is one important reason. Specifically in regards to anti-semitism, which was rather common in the Church until then. VII did succeed in greatly reducing anti-semitic sentiment among Catholics, and sidelining anti-semitc clerics.

I think the misunderstanding was that Jews weren’t capable of receiving Salvation. There was a misguided view that the guilt of Jesus’s crucifixion extended to every Jew born since that time and as a result they couldn’t be saved. So yes, that view which was held by some within the Church; and the errors and abuses that followed, should’ve been stamped out long ago.

However, since VII the errors have swung the opposite way. Now we have some people teaching that Jews and Muslims don’t have to convert or even believe in Jesus to be saved. That is just as bad as the opposite view.

Unfortunately, too many people think that telling Jews that they need Jesus Christ is anti-Semitic.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

It is time to simply leave Vatican II behind in the era it was intended for and move on. It’s “transitory” approach and analysis of the circumstances of the world needs to be re-evaluated.

You didn’t really answer my other question with anything other than your own generalizations.

So maybe you could answer a different question: Could you give an example of one of the transitory elements in Part ll of Guadium et spes which is no longer relevant today?

 

[puer.dei]

The Council failed to strengthen the Church in light of these circumstances, when that was its whole point as a “pastoral” Council. The Council Fathers utterly failed to read the signs of the times and contributed to, rather than mitigated, the problems.

And bishops didn’t stick with their prior formation.

All of whom were raised, trained, and ordained in the pre-Vatican II church.

 

[AlbMagno]

Well I have posted some replies here that have been ignored, and this is clearly turning into another “Moderate vs RadTrad” self-righteous thread, so I will mute this now.

 

[phil19034]

OK so speed of canonization. Good catch.

On the subject of speed, I think faster handling of annulments is an improvement.

I don’t think that had anything to do with Vatican II. That’s was simply St. John Paul II and modern technology

 

[Jbrady]

Would you qualify Pre-VII Church to be an Early Modern Era Roman Church, product of the Council of Trent? I would.

I wouldn’t.

I would characterize it as damaged by poor political choices during the wars of religion and the Thirty Years War, during the dealings with the absolute monarchs of Portugual, Spain, France and Austria in the mid-1700s, very much so during the French Revolution and the reign of Napoleon, during the unification of Italy, and during the early twentieth century with both World Wars and the interbellum period.

It had been on a downward trend for a long time, and was scraping bottom.

 

[phil19034]

I don’t mean to derail the thread, but can someone explain to me what the New Evangelization even is?

Historically, the hierarchy of the Church evangelized two ways:

1. To the nations though sending missionary priests
2. To the non-Christian individuals within a nation the Church has been established in.

The “New Evangelization” targets the Baptized and/or Confirmed who have fallen away from their faith or never really had faith to begin with.

In order words, the “Original Evangelization” focused on the non-Baptized, while the "New Evangelization focus on:

1. re-evangelizing the Christian Nations
2. evangelizing Baptized Christians who were never properly evangelized.

I recommend the following from the Augustine Institute

What’s New in the New Evangelization — FAITH & CULTURE

Joseph Pearce and Christopher Blum discuss ways in which the Augustine Institute is at the vanguard of the New Evangelization.

www.faithandculture.com

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Thanks, I’ll check it out.