Vatican II

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mgray82
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The first thing we have to do is to build up Church culture. If that means having a fortress culture, almost a “ghetto Church,” then that is what must happen.
I think you have a valid point, but I do not think we need to attack that which is not to our taste to build up our Catholic culture. I know in my parish and diocese there is an emphasis on return to much of our uniquely Catholic culture, in music, art and language, while retaining the best of other things. Hopefully, the future will see some of the more forced parts of modern culture fade away while retaining the greatest part that will stand the test of time. This is nothing new. It happens throughout history.

The uniquieness of this age is that history proceeds exponentially. This is a problem. It makes preservation of our culture imperative.
 
because many of the pastoral teachings were written in a very ambiguous way.

IN light of tradition, nothing changed, but in light of some of those in power in the Church, they used the ambiguous documents as license to destroy everything (this is what people called the Spirit of Vatican II).

The Old Mass was all but abolished (even though the Popes, not the council itself did not allow for this to happen), many Bishops used the documents as license to be disobedient to the Pope (the Canadians reacting in rebellion to Humani Vitae, establishing Altar girls, allowing Communion in the Hand), and what people call “wreck-ovation” the high altars were overthrown, the tabernacle was moved to the side, the altar rails were ripped from the ground, statues and paintings in some churches disappeared.

Now we sit here trying to pick up the pieces. Paul VI said the smoke of satan hand entered into the Church. John Paul II said that the Old Mass was never abolished. Benedict XVI has become even more of a friend to tradition.

Most of what is wrong with the Spirit of Vatican II is due to the disobedience of many in the Church, and most of what people find wrong in the documents themselves (false ecumenism, etc) is not even doctrinal.

The Church is the same, we just have been rocked by a wave of disobedience (the errors of Russia if you will)
There is no such thing as the Spirit of Vatican II. That is false.

If people want to know more about the documents and how they were not confusing, go here:

harvestingthefruit.com/

If people want to know about the damage caused by dissidents inside the Church, go here:

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704586504574654282563939764.html

And none - zero changes were even suggested by Vatican II.

Pope Benedict and the Latin Mass:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html

Peace,
Ed
 
And arguably it was dropping members steadily. Furthermore, these last two generations are in a unique time of change in the history of man. In any case, arguing is irrelevant as this is the course the Church took. Obviously many saw a need for the council.
Was it? The Council ended in 1965 and from as far as I can tell there was no exodus until perhaps 1968.
 
There was no ecclesiastical meltdown, huge heresy to combat (Modernism was already condemned, although that doesn’t mean it was dead), crisis in the Church, heretic to anathematize, crusade to wage, dogma to declare, etc. Catholicism right before and during the Council was arguably doing very, very well. That is what I mean.

I know the world was starting to go a bit crazy at the time, but the Church it seems was rather insulated against it, at least for the time being. Then Vatican II happened and everyone thought–and reality here is not important because the way people perceive the Council for whatever reason is, in this case, far more historically important than what it really says–the Council gave them license to do all kinds of simply crazy things. Very few people see Vatican II as a bastion against the world. Most see it as a marriage license between the Church and the world.

Never mind the fact that I think one of the big reasons Vatican II has been so absolutely disastrously implemented in the first place is because it tried to predict in the future and had far too much confidence in that elusive “modern world” that never came to exist. I don’t know of any Council in the past that dealt with things it thought were going to happen.

It seems to me that you are saying that Vatican II tried to shield the Church from the world. :confused: Isn’t that the opposite of what the Council was intended to do?

I mean, I really do not see how it can be said that Vatican II tried to keep the world off of the Church. I mean that in all seriousness. I simply cannot see how Vatican II was intended to be the Church’s response against the problems of the world at the time.
I was there in 1962. The Cuban Missile Crisis was in progress. Russian Communists now had Medium-Range Nuclear Missiles in place on the island of Cuba.

There is no basis fact in fact that the Council ever made predictions about the future. If anything, after President John F. Kennedy convinced the Russians to back down, it was known to all that the threat was not going away. There was a Civil Defense sign on the gym of my Catholic School. ICBMs were 20 to 25 minutes away depending on where you lived. And we lived with constant reminders from our Federal Government that we were in a struggle with “Godless Communism.” The threat grew worse when the the existence of MIRV warheads was revealed. That meant that a single warhead could contain Multiple Independently targetable Reentry Vehicles. So one warhead could destroy 4 or more targets as the nose cone shielding the individual warheads was jettisoned in space and the warheads were released to fall on different targets.

In 1962, The America Press published a booklet for all Catholics titled the 2nd Vatican Council. It was digest size and 96 pages long. It cost 50 cents. I have a copy. In it were chapters titled “How to Understand the Council” and “Problems of the Modern Church,” among others.

IMPRIMI POTEST: John J. McGinty, S.J., Provincial of the New York Province. NIHIL OBSTAT: Francis J. Breidenbach, Ph.D., Censor Deputatus. IMPRIMATUR: Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York

Peace,
Ed
 
You have a point here. Can the culture of a Church be changed in about a decade or two? Remember than many of the supposed changes stemming from V2 came within 10-20 years of the council. I think it is impossible for a council to have sudden impact. Anything takes time to take effect. I firmly believe that things were set in motion a long time ago which resulted in what happened in the 60s and 70s. Vatican II just happened to be an innocent bystander passing by when the shooting happened and got caught in the crossfire.
It was made into a scapegoat. It is the excuse, often presented on these forms, as to why things went wrong after. Caught in the crossfire is too moderate a term - today, too many are told: “Vatican II is to blame for everything that happened after.” That is 100% false.

Peace,
Ed
 
I need to be more specific, the comments are limited to Quebec (and to some extent as I understand it, Ireland), and NOT Canada as a whole. The Catholic population of Quebec vs. the rest of Canada is not monolithic. Newfoundland and Quebec are really the only provinces founded by largely Catholic peoples; Newfoundland from Ireland, and Quebec from France. There are many similarities between the two. Elsewhere in Canada it’s a mix of Irish and more recent immigrants, the latter being responsible for the growth in Catholicism in Canada (it’s a popular misconception that Catholicism is receding in Canada, it’s growing through immigration). In other provinces with the possible exception of Newfoundland, there’s nowhere near as much bad blood towards the Church as in Quebec. In Quebec, we became like a teenager given the keys to dad’s car for the first time, and went over the top on changing things that weren’t called on to be changed.

I think we need to stop crying over Vatican II. It happened. It happened when it happened. Not all that came out of it was and is bad; in fact none of it was, it was instead misappropriated by groups with various agendas to fulfill. We have to figure out a way to work with what we have, and “steal back” Vatican II from those who misuse it and I think that’s what the Holy Father is trying to do. It will be impossible to put the genie back into the bottle and undo Vatican II completely.
First you say, “none of it was” followed by “It will be impossible to put the genie back into the bottle…” So, which is it?

With God, all things are possible.

Peace,
Ed
 
I agree that we need to completely rectify the problems that we have. But perhaps only one percent of what people think Vatican II did and wanted was really called for by the Council. So yes, I agree, let us fix things. My generation is not bogged down with the baggage of the past. However…

I believe it is very important to complain and moan so that our complaining and moaning will become part of Church history, something that future generations hundreds of years from now will remember, so that something like this does not happen again. Complain enough to make it a past error to never repeat. I personally feel a very deep sense of obligation to fixing this mess–for the record, I don’t know why I feel this way–and I also feel a very deep sense of obligation to do my part to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
To make sure what doesn’t happen again? Catholics need to know every detail, beginning in 1962, of the build-up to the attack that was coming against the Catholic Church in the late 1960s and why it happened and who was behind it. That way, they will be able to tell how and by what methods the wolves will try again.

Peace,
Ed
 
I disagree. Cutting people off from Grace isn’t the right approach. Some people will respond to that Grace. Others will not. We can’t cut off those currently in error but who ultimately will respond, in order to punish those who won’t.

Sometimes I worry that this is the approach the Holy Father is taking. I hope and pray it isn’t.
Cuting people off from grace?:confused: Where do you get that from and why do you wonder if the Holy Father is taking that approach? I have never heard of or even imagined such a thing.
 
Was it? The Council ended in 1965 and from as far as I can tell there was no exodus until perhaps 1968.
There have been stats offered before. Next time I see one I will tap you on the PM. But yes, there was already a decline. Vatican II was a reflection of a problem and did convene with reason. Think of it this way, where do you think all those ideas that groups like the SSPX find distasteful came from? The participants in V2 were already priests and bishops. V2 was not led by brand new priests with new ideas. Also, we need to consider that the Catholic Church was not alone in experiencing a decline in attendance, faith, and moral practice in the sixties and seventies.

This is the quickest data I could find.

Catholic population (The Official Catholic Directory)
45.6m

48.7m
52.3m
57.4m
59.9m
64.8m
65.4m​

Catholic population (self-identified, survey-based)
48.5m

54.5m
59.5m
65.7m
71.7m
74.0m
77.7m​

cara.georgetown.edu/CARAServices/requestedchurchstats.html

I think it is a mistake to draw a causal conclusion from Vatican II, just as it would be to draw one from Trent, and blame the council for the problem it was responding to.
 
We need to rebuild the culture, too if we can. Even with good catechesis, I think Catholic are too vulnerable to the snares of the world in the current mainstream Catholic culture in America.
There is very little mainstream Catholic culture in America today - not on TV, or the movies, or in many books, magazines and even the radio. Through the late 1950s and early 1960s, we grew up with a mainstream media that reflected and respected our Christian values and way of life. Just listen to the opening song to Family Guy which spits on “those values on which we used to rely.”

I grew up on songs about love and devotion and the media gave us good, clean fun so that all ages could relax and get good, wholesome entertainment. It took 40 years to slowly convince us to accept a little bad on TV (which, since I was there, was not that bad in the 1970s), to give us half good and half bad in the 1980s, to 80% garbage in the 1990s, and 95% garbage when the internet appeared in the late 1990s.

We have plenty of good examples of the culture from the 1950s and pre-1968 part of the 60s to examine and use as guides for our future mainstream culture. My point is: perverts, sexual deviants and miscreants wanted to turn our mainstream media into their image and likeness but it took 40 years of gradually dripping more and more poison into our veins that today, we either live like the world or only express our faith on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation. And male-female relationships? Dating? Who needs that? You pick someone and have “just sex,” like going to the bathroom. Just like they wanted in 1968.

Peace,
Ed
 
I think this is a great point. Just telling people right and wrong is not going to allow for people to live moral lives easily. The Culture has to be supportive of such an endeavor. The current culture we live in has been built on doing exactly the opposite.

To give an example, if consider modesty, the culture today is built up on being immodest and encouraging person’s to lead others to sexual temptation. In such a culture, asking someone to simply be modest is not going to work. Even if they wanted to be modest, they wouldn’t know how to start because there are no cultural values to inform them on how to be modest.

So overall, our culture needs to change as well. But as it stands, it is most likely that it will probably only change over a long period of time as people try to live moral lives the best they can. The destruction to our once great western culture has been done.
It is up to each of us. Right now, we can discard those parts of the culture that are immoral. Each one of can be a part of the New Evangelization. And we must instruct ourselves and our kids using sound Catholic principles and books that untangle the mess and show the way out:

catholiceducation.org/articles/feminism/fe0005.html

Peace,
Ed
 
The first thing we have to do is to build up Church culture. If that means having a fortress culture, almost a “ghetto Church,” then that is what must happen.
We must provide a way to build Catholic communities again. In the 1960s, our neighbors were not strangers, we gladly helped each other and even though we all did not go to the same Church, we shared our Christian values in common. In other words, instead of going to Church, not knowing the person sitting next to you, and getting in our cars and going home, we need to make friends with other Catholics in our community. As always, the people we meet need to earn our trust. As we know, there are daily Catholics, part-time Catholics and Cafeteria Catholics. Let us nurture communities and not live as isolated Catholics thinking, “Well, I guess I’m on my own out here.” I have one solid Catholic friend and we encourage each other to live as the Bible tells us.

Peace,
Ed
 
Was it? The Council ended in 1965 and from as far as I can tell there was no exodus until perhaps 1968.
1968 was the turning point, it marked the tip of the spear attack on the Catholic Church by perverts, sexual deviants and anarchists, and Vatican II had nothing to do with it. In 1967, Pope Paul VI saw what was coming. He created a group to advise him about Humane Vitae, and - no surprise here - they advised loosening the Church’s restrictions on Artificial Birth Control. The Pope had Humanae Vitae published in 1968, reaffirmed constant Church teaching, warned the faithful about what would happen if his words were not heeded, and here was the reaction:

“Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.” Source: Regnum Christi

in an event unprecedented in the history of the church” That, not the scapegoat, Vatican II, was the first wave of the assault.

Peace,
Ed
 
I disagree. Cutting people off from Grace isn’t the right approach. Some people will respond to that Grace. Others will not. We can’t cut off those currently in error but who ultimately will respond, in order to punish those who won’t.

Sometimes I worry that this is the approach the Holy Father is taking. I hope and pray it isn’t.
I do not mean cutting people off from grace. I don’t understand how it could be understood that I mean that. I do not mean cutting people off from the Church. What I mean is having a strong and highly visible outward piety and identity. A true piety and well-grounded identity, nothing pharasiacal of course, but these need to be readily visible. We have lost our ability to “witness” to the Faith because the vast majority of us don’t know how to witness to the Faith.

Back in the day Catholic culture was strong. Rosaries, Latin, chant, quiet prayer, a strong community to fall back on if a bad situation afflicted the family, wooden box confessionals, beautiful churches insofar as a parish can afford, etc. This is all what non-Catholics perceive as “Catholic stuff.” This is what the movies and TV teaches them. At one time it was true. It is still true to some extent but not to the extent that it was, and we Catholics don’t live up to it. These practices might not be the “best” way in a principled fantasyland–that “modern world” fantasyland that will never exist with that “modern man” who will never exist–to live the Faith, but given our human condition and the natural world in which we live, they are the best way we can operate. 2,000 years of tradition proves that. That is not to say that practices don’t change (they do), but they do so naturally and on their own: if a devotion is unpopular it will die out, if a liturgical/cultural practice is in all circumstances unhelpful it will die out, if it is heretical or works against the Faith or the unity of the Church it will be condemned. We got punch drunk on that “changechangechange” Kool-Aid and bought into that modern man modern world lie and we abandoned our culture. The problem with that is, as I said, that is what the world knows us for, our visible and outward Catholic culture. It is also what makes us keep our unity throughout the ages and across continents, and it will continue to do so in the future, regardless of how great communications technology gets. Modernworldmodernman and his Skype doesn’t make us keep the Faith, Rosaries do. Modernworldmodernman and his cell phone doesn’t make us keep the Faith, the Eucharist and good liturgy do.

Back to the world knowing us for our outward identity. For example: I live in South Carolina. A blogger, Fr. Allan McDonald of www.southerorderspage.blogspot.com, lives in Georgia. Good old Protestant South. Fr. McDonald sometimes mentions on his blog the fact that when the Sisters ditched their habits and the priests ditched their cassocks–would you believe it!–the Protestant neighbors were dismayed and rather distraught. (!!!) Seems a bit silly, yes? At first glance. But when examined more deeply, it isn’t silly. When the Protestants know us Romish Popery Papists for Friday fish fries, Rosaries, Latin, becassocked priests, habited Sisters working at the hospital, weird smelly stuff in church, fancy vestments and weird phrases like “Perpetual Virginity of Mary,” well if we just all of a sudden get rid of it all (regardless of if in principle none of it was technically “gotten rid of”), then guess what? Our entire witness to the Faith has just DIED. It has completely died. Not decreased, but died. To the minds of the Protestants down here in the South, we become just a funky memory. Now, why? Because this is what they know us for. They don’t know us for the deeper parts of our Faith. They know us for our quirky outward eccentricities. These quirky outward eccentricities, along with a good dose of charity and a genuine smile, are the first step in… evangelization!

Imagine a sign out in front of a Catholic church down here in the South that says, “Interested in the Catholic Church? Come check us out anytime.” Random Southern Protestant sees this but then realizes–mistakenly, but never mind that, because reality isn’t important here, perception is king–that we’re just some weirdo cult that is afraid of itself and he can’t even remember what makes us weirdos Catholic in the first place. He’s never seen a confident and holy priest in one of those weird dress thingies, or a Sister strong in the faith wearing her habit, or a pious Catholic family praying the Rosary together. He’s never experienced these things because he’s only twenty years old and, as his grandmother riding in the car tells him, “Oh, those Catholics got rid of all that stuff a long time ago, they’re pretty much just like us now.” Guess what? No outward witness to the faith. No Catholic culture. Potential convert lost.

So in no way do I mean that we should cut people off from grace. In fact, as I see it, we are actively cutting people off from grace by continuing to mind-blowingly play hide-and-go-seek with our patrimony and identity and culture and, ultimately, our Faith.

And I do not mean to say that cassocks and surplices and lace and habits and Latin are our Faith. But I hope I have shown how and why these things are indispensable to our religion. They are because we are in the human condition and live in the natural world with intellectual and emotional limitations, and so we must play game rather than try to constantly pine for this modernworldmodernman that does not and will not ever exist.

This is what I see as the strongest argument for tradition at the local level, geographically and in our own time. By the way, this post was very fun to write.

I also do not mean my scenario as the be all end all. I simply mean it to be a specific example to illustrate a broad principle.
I think you have a valid point, but I do not think we need to attack that which is not to our taste to build up our Catholic culture. I know in my parish and diocese there is an emphasis on return to much of our uniquely Catholic culture, in music, art and language, while retaining the best of other things. Hopefully, the future will see some of the more forced parts of modern culture fade away while retaining the greatest part that will stand the test of time. This is nothing new. It happens throughout history.

The uniquieness of this age is that history proceeds exponentially. This is a problem. It makes preservation of our culture imperative.
Please see above. It is true that Catholic tradition and outward identity as perceived by non-Catholics does fit my personal liking immensely. However, I have tried to illustrate why it is absolutely crucial in its own right.
 
I do not mean cutting people off from grace. I don’t understand how it could be understood that I mean that.
It was the comment “ghetto Church”. That implied to me one of exclusion. The problem I have with that is that we become Catholic by our baptism and we don’t cease to be Catholic even if we are in error. I assumed the comment meant excluding those in error. If I misinterpreted then I apologize.
 
First you say, “none of it was” followed by “It will be impossible to put the genie back into the bottle…” So, which is it?

With God, all things are possible.

Peace,
Ed
I mean that it is impossible to undo Vatican II.

I don’t mean that it is impossible to re-appropriate Vatican II for its authentic application.
 
It was the comment “ghetto Church”. That implied to me one of exclusion. The problem I have with that is that we become Catholic by our baptism and we don’t cease to be Catholic even if we are in error. I assumed the comment meant excluding those in error. If I misinterpreted then I apologize.
Yes, I just meant that we have to have a strong outward identity that is confident yet fully thankful to God, and we must have this even if it means being ridiculed.
I mean that it is impossible to undo Vatican II.

I don’t mean that it is impossible to re-appropriate Vatican II for its authentic application.
It is of course impossible to undo Vatican II. But the problem as I see it with that statement is that it implies that we have actually “done” Vatican II. We haven’t, as you go on to say. We’ve put something cheap in its place and used Vatican II as a scapegoat.

At the same time, I think we have to be ever conscious of the mistakes we made so that, insofar as possible, we prevent them from happening again in the future.
 
It is of course impossible to undo Vatican II. But the problem as I see it with that statement is that it implies that we have actually “done” Vatican II. We haven’t, as you go on to say. We’ve put something cheap in its place and used Vatican II as a scapegoat.
Not everywhere though. There is plenty of authentic and orthodox interpretation of VII around if you know where to look for it. The problem is teasing it out of of those places where it exists.

Happily for me I’m an oblate of a Benedictine monastery that “gets it”. Communities like this are the guardians of orthodoxy and truth. And isn’t that usually the case with monastics? They kept the faith through the Dark Ages. We owe them a huge debt. We will probably be beholden to them again 😉

And I would add that the fact that they fill their conventual chapel to near capacity every Sunday means that the laity does hunger for an authentic Catholic experience. We need to take that beyond the level of wanting an occasional experience, to the level of incarnating Catholic culture into their own faith life. Hint: some of these folks need to get into their local liturgical committees to try to dampen their excesses. Every gesture, every word of those monks at Mass has deep meaning and significance. Deep Catholic meaning, yes, even in the Ordinary Form Mass that they celebrate.

(Memo to self, I should put my money where my mouth is, but a job loss last year means I have a new job that requires 3 hours of commuting per day. No time!!! When I retire in a couple of years :))
 
I disagree. Cutting people off from Grace isn’t the right approach. Some people will respond to that Grace. Others will not. We can’t cut off those currently in error but who ultimately will respond, in order to punish those who won’t.

Sometimes I worry that this is the approach the Holy Father is taking. I hope and pray it isn’t.
Why worry when you can find out?

ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/pope-renounce-culture-that-disguises-falsehood-as-truth

Peace,
Ed
 
And arguably it was dropping members steadily. Furthermore, these last two generations are in a unique time of change in the history of man. In any case, arguing is irrelevant as this is the course the Church took. Obviously many saw a need for the council.
Scroll down a little to see the graph that begins at 1965.

old.usccb.org/comm/cip.shtml

Peace,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top