Was Vatican II a success?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SnorterLuster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Confiteor:
It is hard to say whether some of the negatives in Catholic practice (lower mass attendance, less frequent reception of Sacrament of Confession, vocations shortage, premarital sex, etc) might have still occurred if there had not been VII as we haven’t kept all the other factors constant. All we can say it that the negative indicators are associated with Vatican II and possibly correlated. There is some evidence, statistical and anecdotal, the Church deteriorated on some of these measures in the post VII era. On the other hand, why would you conclude that it would have been worse absent VII?

Also, generally speaking, catechesis since VII has been poorer, as evidenced by the low percentage of Catholics that believe in the Real Presence, high percentage that favor abortion and otherwise depart from the Church on doctrincal issues.
Click to expand...

Maybe this is a good place to mention the Abbe Godin’s book France: Pays de Mission, translated into English by Maisie Ward under the title France Pagan ? France did not begin to be de-Christianised at Vatican 2: the process had been going on for at least a generation; perhaps since the Revolution of 1789. The USA was in certain respects rather well off - in certain respects. It was short of priests even before Vatican II. Maybe, if the permanent diaconate had not been restored by the Council, there would be more priests than there are.​

Vatican II cannot be judged by looking at the US alone - that makes no sense. The US is a small part of the whole CC - and the CC’s troubles long predated Vatican II. ##
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
Look, get me started, I can’t find it: “we acknowledge our manifold sins and wickedness which we from time to time have most grievously committed against Thy Majesty.”

Incidentally, all the Anglican services have as their antecedant the Old Sarum Rite, which was beautiful, but was supressed by Trent…I think.

Actually, I’ll have to do this latter.
Click to expand...
“WE do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his Body, and our souls washed through his most precious Blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.”

1928 Book, whole service = 6, 800

"WE doe not presume to come to this thy table (O mercyfull Lorde) trustinge in our owne righteousnesse, but in thy manifolde and greate mercies: we bee not worthye, so much as to gather up the crommes under thy table: but thou art the same Lorde whose propertie is alwayes to have mercye: graunt us therfore (gracious lord) so to eate the fleshe of thy dere sonne Jesus Christe, and to drinke his bloud, that our synfulle bodyes maye be made cleane by his body, and our soules wasched through his most precious bloud, and that we may evermore dwel in him, and he in us. Amen. "

1552 Book, whole service = 7300 words

Modern book, the prayer is gone. The Canon is much shorter the who service about 4000 words. “us miserable sinners” becomes “us”

Queen Mary, when she tried to re-establish the Church in England used the Sarum Rite, but it never caught on, and they decided to use the Roman Rite when they brought back the hierarchy in the ninteenth century. I’m not sure why.
 
mcliffor said:
"WE do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his Body, and our souls washed through his most precious Blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen
Click to expand...

."

1928 Book, whole service = 6, 800

"WE doe not presume to come to this thy table (O mercyfull Lorde) trustinge in our owne righteousnesse, but in thy manifolde and greate mercies: we bee not worthye, so much as to gather up the crommes under thy table: but thou art the same Lorde whose propertie is alwayes to have mercye: graunt us therfore (gracious lord) so to eate the fleshe of thy dere sonne Jesus Christe, and to drinke his bloud, that our synfulle bodyes maye be made cleane by his body, and our soules wasched through his most precious bloud, and that we may evermore dwel in him, and he in us. Amen. "

1552 Book, whole service = 7300 words

Modern book, the prayer is gone. The Canon is much shorter the who service about 4000 words. “us miserable sinners” becomes “us”

Very bad idea - we are miserable, sinners, in desperate need of salvation. Deny or obscure this rather brutal fact, and the NT loses its urgency. The Cross ceases to make any sense whatever. What England needs is a good long shot of Calvinism - if it won’t take Catholicism: Calvin never ever lets you forget that you deserve Hell. A very cheerful fellow, Calvin is; but at least he is realistic about our indescribable vileness, as it is compared with God’s Glory.​

Queen Mary, when she tried to re-establish the Church in England used the Sarum Rite, but it never caught on, and they decided to use the Roman Rite when they brought back the hierarchy in the ninteenth century. I’m not sure why.
Click to expand...

To judge from David Holmes’ book “More Roman Than Rome”, almost certainly because the Roman Rite was Roman - and perhaps because the Sarum Use had acquired Anglican, and so “unCatholic”, associations. FWIW, they used Roman forms of vestments - not pre-Reformation forms of them.​

 
Gottle of Geer said:
## “Being Catholic” is by itself not enough though - it is meant to be a help to our relationship with Christ. If former Catholics find that in Protestantism when they did not do so in Catholicism, I don’t think they are missing anything - they’re gaining. ##
Click to expand...

So it is better to leave the True Church and become Protestant? Is that what you are saying? If they aren’t missing anything and in fact gaining something, pray tell me what they are gaining.
 
I think it’s entirely too early to discern the success or failure of Vatican II. We don’t even know how successful the Council of Trent was at cutting Protestant heresies off at the knees yet. Give it time.
 
quote:SnorterLuster
For me, at the time, Vatican II was a “solution” in search of a “problem”. For years the liberal theologians had been decrying the problems they perceived in the Church. Yet, for most of us in the pews though, things were going very well. The Churches were full, our families were and continued to be fully Catholic. Some priests were agitating for change, but most seemed happy to be orthodox and secure in their faith. Seminaries and Convents were full with new vocations. My diocese in Oklahoma had just finished building a seminary to handle the great numbers of vocations to the priesthood
Click to expand...
I was, I think, 16 when the Council started, so I well recall
the days you’re describing.

Could it be that John XXIII was inspired by the Holy Spirit
to call that Council because of what was coming…

the Sixites, huge numbers of young people attending
college [many the first in their families to do so],
the “sexual revolution” that pulled into the corridors of history,
the technological revolution…where Catholic kids were
going to have a lot more “(name removed by moderator)ut” from the outside, than the
generation that grew up in the fifties…amazingly high
incomes [by comparison] for the grandchildren or great-grandchildren of immigrants - which does tend to give one a different view of what ‘the world’ has to offer.:rolleyes: …the techno-revolution that brought us some TV ‘entertainment’ that my
grandparents would have fainted, if they’d seen it.
Movies that made extra-marital sex seem the ‘norm.’
The birth control pill, which, in my view, made the
sexual revolution posssible…and then Roe Wade, in
the early seventies. 😦
[And, now that I think of it, the sit-ins, the teach-ins and
“speaking truth to power” [of the Vietnam period] that challenged authority -quite publicly - surely had some kind of effect, in
terms of how any kind of ‘authority’ was viewed.]

These became cultural realities - and I doubt that the
Church of Bing Crosby or Barry Fitzgerald Going My Way]
was in a position to deal with same.

Perhaps I’m in error, in this view…but I don’t think so.

reen12
 
Hello, JKirkLVNV,

Looking back, can you think of anything that the
Church might have done differently- in terms of
addressing people in the culture that was coming
to be?

Do you think it would have helped, if the Tridintine Mass
was kept? If Catholic schools had remained open in
large numbers?

I’ve asked myself these questions, but haven’t come
up with a sure sense, that these, remaining unchanged,
would have helped.

Do you have a thought on this?

reen12
 
40.png
reen12:
Hello, JKirkLVNV,

Looking back, can you think of anything that the
Church might have done differently- in terms of
addressing people in the culture that was coming
to be?

Do you think it would have helped, if the Tridintine Mass
was kept? If Catholic schools had remained open in
large numbers?

I’ve asked myself these questions, but haven’t come
up with a sure sense, that these, remaining unchanged,
would have helped.

Do you have a thought on this?

reen12
Click to expand...
You didn’t ask me, but I’m not bashful. My wish for the church in the 60s was for it to remain a rock, a refuge, a port in a storm. Yes, times were changing and that is exactly the time for our institutions to remain steady in their beliefs.

As I watched my friends and relatives leave the Church, I watched the Baptist Churches in the area grow by leaps and bounds. I saw the youth programs cancelled in my parish for lack of interest while the Baptist Fellowship programs were expanding both in membership and scope. The difference? The Baptists were preaching the “old time religion”. They weren’t sugar coating their beliefs. Drinking, dancing and sex were still sins and you were expected to abstain. The lesson in my parish for the teens? Sex before marriage is a sin, but we know you will do it anyway so please use condoms to prevent something bad happening.

We’re about the same age and the changes in society were fast & furious. I thought then, and I think now that many in the Church surrendered to the times before a shot was fired.
 
40.png
reen12:
Hello, JKirkLVNV,

Looking back, can you think of anything that the
Church might have done differently- in terms of
addressing people in the culture that was coming
to be?

Do you think it would have helped, if the Tridintine Mass
was kept? If Catholic schools had remained open in
large numbers?

I’ve asked myself these questions, but haven’t come
up with a sure sense, that these, remaining unchanged,
would have helped.

Do you have a thought on this?

reen12
Click to expand...
No, I think we would have gone through all of this anyway. I truly believe that the problems we see are the result of people (and they being Catholic, since it’s the Church we’re talking about) as a generation going through a second childhood (the best way I can describe it). Kind of like 56 year old men who ditch their wives, even though they’re beautiful and accomplished, get a girlfriend 30 years their junior, grow their hair long, even though they’re bald on top, and pull it back in a pony tail, get their ear pierced, and start driving a red convertible sports car with a lisence plate that says “STUD.” That’s basically how a generation and a half behaved. AND consider this…psychology/pop psychology/pseudo-pop-psychology boomed during this period. Here was a brand NEW god and he told you that you weren’t a sinner and what you wanted was good and it was all about how YOU felt about everything, whatever you wanted or felt or whatever your perspective was was validated by this god (Satan didn’t infiltrate the Church. Our numbers fell off because he did such a good job at posing as a caring shrink! I think they did far more harm than the influx of Eastern religions, though they didn’t help matters any. People didn’t need Holy Mother Church anymore, because all she talked about was sin anyway and it wasn’t about sin, it was about our needs). Note also the terms “Holy Mother Church” and “Holy Father” and “Father,” etc., doesn’t pop psychology teach us that basically all our problems and unhappiness stem from unhappy childhoods and WHOSE FAULT WAS THAT!!! I think it was the age. I think there truly is a springtime coming, spoken of by John Paul the Great, because I think we’ve reached the end of what materialism, escapism, and all the other “isms” can give us and we’re slowly (du…uh) realizing how spritually bankrupt we are. This is also the reason that it’s the Church in the West is the one suffering from this stupid malaise: only in this part of the world do we have the leisure and resources to spend our spart time contemplating our navels and how miserable we are. The Church only got mess up insofar as some of her members, priests and lay, bought into the spirit of those false gods, and again in the West. It wasn’t the Council, the Pope or the Mass, but tjere were some heretical western priests, nuns, and lay folk who did and still do buy into the “I’m okay, you’re okay” mindset. Again, however, they aren’t the Pope, the Council, or the Mass.
 
quote: SnorterLuster
You didn’t ask me, but I’m not bashful. My wish for the church in the 60s was for it to remain a rock, a refuge, a port in a storm. Yes, times were changing and that is exactly the time for our institutions to remain steady in their beliefs.

As I watched my friends and relatives leave the Church, I watched the Baptist Churches in the area grow by leaps and bounds. I saw the youth programs cancelled in my parish for lack of interest while the Baptist Fellowship programs were expanding both in membership and scope. The difference? The Baptists were preaching the “old time religion”. They weren’t sugar coating their beliefs. Drinking, dancing and sex were still sins and you were expected to abstain. The lesson in my parish for the teens? Sex before marriage is a sin, but we know you will do it anyway so please use condoms to prevent something bad happening.

We’re about the same age and the changes in society were fast & furious. I thought then, and I think now that many in the Church surrendered to the times before a shot was fired.
Click to expand...
I’m glad to have your view on this, especially since we’ve
lived thru the same time period. *

I don’t necessarily disagree with your view. The thing is,
we will never know if that would have produced a
different reality.
Surely, you can recall the beauty, dignity and majesty
of the Tridintine Mass. The sense of the* sacred* was
almost palpable.
It was interesting to see some of our contemporaries,
who hadn’t been to Mass in years, attending a Novus Ordo
Mass. They were dumbfounded, in my experience.
I don’t at all question the validity of the Novus Ordo,
but I *do *question the prudential judgements that produced
same.
[One more felt banner saying: Jesus Loves You ! …:cool: ]

I think the generation behind us were sold short -
in the sense that the young recognize dignity and
majesty when they encounter it…despite…or perhaps
because…of what they see, in the surrounding culture.

[though, putting the Collect and any part of the Mass
that changed - based on saint of the day etc* -was well-
advised to be rendered in the language of the area,
I think.]

I appreciate your thoughts,

reen12
 
quote: JKirkLVNV
I think there truly is a springtime coming, spoken of by John Paul the Great, because I think we’ve reached the end of what materialism, escapism, and all the other “isms” can give us and we’re slowly (du…uh) realizing how spritually bankrupt we are.
Click to expand...
I think you’re right on this.
Got to go make lunch. Be back, to comment further, on
your post - after chicken-pot pie.🙂

Best,

reen12
 
40.png
reen12:
Surely, you can recall the beauty, dignity and majesty
of the Tridintine Mass. The sense of the* sacred* was
almost palpable.
Click to expand...
No, I don’t, I’m an adult convert, at the age of 26. I’m 43 now. I’ve only attended a TLM once, at the local SSPX Chapel. I didn’t care for it, but I don’t care if other’s do, as long as they don’t dump on the Pauline Mass, which I believe, properly celebrated, has a beauty, dignity, and majesty all it’s own. And I think the majority of the Mass in the vernacular is preferable to the majority being in Latin (I think the Gloria, Sanctus, Mysterium Fidei, Amen, Agnus Dei are lovely sung in Latin, but the rest I would prefer in the language I understand).
 
quote: reen12

Originally Posted by reen12
*
Surely, you can recall the beauty, dignity and majesty
of the Tridintine Mass. The sense of the sacred was
almost palpable.
Click to expand...
quote:JKirkLVNV
No, I don’t, I’m an adult convert, at the age of 26. I’m 43 now. I’ve only attended a TLM once, at the local SSPX Chapel. I didn’t care for it, but I don’t care if other’s do, as long as they don’t dump on the Pauline Mass, which I believe, properly celebrated, has a beauty, dignity, and majesty all it’s own.
Click to expand...
I can certainly understand your position on same.

Best,

reen12
 
Was Vatican II a success? I guess that depends on if your a Catholic or a Protestant?:whistle:
 
The following article, “The Unfinished Business of Vatican II ,” by Dr. Marcellino D’Ambrosio is responsive to your question.

“The goal of the council was to equip the Church to effectively re-evangelize the world through a compelling proclamation of Jesus Christ in a language that the world could understand (ecclesia ad extra). Division among Christians is of course a tremendous hindrance to this, hence the Council’s commitment to effective ecumenism.”

"If there is anything that Catholics in the pew know about Vatican II, it’s that “Vatican II changed the Mass.” But when asked to enumerate those changes, most mention the disappearance of Latin and the priest facing the people and not much more.

Interestingly enough, neither of these effects were mandated by the actual text of the council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC). But many other things were. "

tcrnews2.com/MarcellinoDAmbrosio.html
 
40.png
Confiteor:
The following article, “The Unfinished Business of Vatican II ,” by Dr. Marcellino D’Ambrosio is responsive to your question.

“The goal of the council was to equip the Church to effectively re-evangelize the world through a compelling proclamation of Jesus Christ in a language that the world could understand (ecclesia ad extra). Division among Christians is of course a tremendous hindrance to this, hence the Council’s commitment to effective ecumenism.”

"If there is anything that Catholics in the pew know about Vatican II, it’s that “Vatican II changed the Mass.” But when asked to enumerate those changes, most mention the disappearance of Latin and the priest facing the people and not much more.

Interestingly enough, neither of these effects were mandated by the actual text of the council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC). But many other things were. "

tcrnews2.com/MarcellinoDAmbrosio.html
Click to expand...
Thanks for the article. I had read it before and it was one of the pieces that led to my question. As I read the article, the Council may not have been a total failure, but it has been ineffective. Again, as I read it, even those areas that might be considered as being successfully implemented, the solutions implemented have had little effect on the underlying problems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top