Council or no council I’m sure there are always those who break from and push the limits of church teaching, I have still yet to see after any council the type of absolute chaos that the western world has endured post V2. From the seminaries in the 70s to the progressive Catholic movements that are thankfully losing steam now. Or the “Catholic” colleges that went way off the left end. Who knows if it was V2 or just the mood of the modern world but many countries including the US have all but lost their faith. Once towering Cathedrals in europe are now just quaint reminders of a time past. The US has been put in the hands of a well meaning bishops conference that struggles like any Catholic entity would after such a revolutionary council liturgically speaking. This is truely a struggle for me, I respect the council, the popes and the current Church and am obedient to her. BUT there is something in my heart and soul that tells me that we have lost our way a little. I think V2 was needed but then it was abused.
Dear Catholicpotato,
Cordial greetings and and thankyou for your insightful comments above. Jolly well said, my sentiments entirely.
It is surely incontrovertible that there has indeed been a revolution in Rome as a consequence of Vatican II, or at least the Council fostered an atmosphere that paved the way for some rather radical inovations and movements. Pope John XXIII had summoned the conference with the aim of opening the windows of the Vatican and letting a breath of fresh air circulate. The air certainly came alright, but not, however, as a gentle breeze but more as a turbulent storm. There can be no doubt that PJXIII gave the radical types an opening and after the ultra-conservative rule of Pius XII, John drew a vital distinction which proved to be a rallying call for the progressives. At the commencement of the Council he uttered the key words, words which evince that Vatican II was unlike any previous Council: “The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another”. In other words, the actual dogma is one thing, immutable and irreformable, but its
expression is quite another. It is surely not hard to understand or see why ambiguous words such as these gave the green light to all manner of radicals and trendy types who each had their own agendas for ‘Church reform’; they all would have their own notions as to what was entailed by renewing and bringing up to date (
aggiornamento) all facets of Church faith and Life. Thus, for example, it would be conceivably possible for a liberal Catholic to claim to be loyal to the Church whilst undermining papal authority and dogmas by reinterpreting them, supposedly to make the Church more relevant and accessible to modern man.
Many are of the opinion, and not without good reason, that the spirit of the age slowly began to infiltrate the Church in the aftermath of Vatican II and standards started to decline as the Catholic faithful adopted a more hand in hand with the world type of religion, unknown in previous generations of Catholics. It was this atmosphere that gave birth to neo-Catholic orthodoxy. This movement is apt to be deceptive because it does affirm a doctrinal/moral orthodoxy, but it is extremely lax when it comes to the acceptance and endorsement of worldly entertainments (e.g. rock and pop music, films and TV programmes with questionable content) and its embracing of immodest styles of clothing, especially for women. This brand of Catholicism is understandably very popular and appealing to the young and those who have ‘crossed the Tiber’ from evangelical Protestantism. Undeniably, it has some noble qualities and generally upholds a strict orthodoxy, but is fundamentally flawed because it is too worldly and culturally-affirming and refuses live up to and sometimes speaks flippantly of the arduous demands of our most holy Faith. IMHO, neo-Catholic orthodoxy, for all its merits, is happy to swim with the stream by imbibing a post-Christian outlook and adopting a ‘Catholicsim Lite’, which makes little demand in terms of sanctity and separation from the world. Were it to remedy these obvious defects, it would, I am quite certain, be a force for good in the irreligious and desperate times in which our lot is cast.
However, to return to Vatican II, the Council by its ‘opening up to the world’ tended to foster the mindset that is eager to embrace as much of the modern spirit as it thinks it can get away with. Naturally, such milieu is very favourable to irreverent ‘clown masses’, semi-nude papal masses and masses that have exchanged the organ and sacred music for guitars and drums and the singing of repetitive ditties that are not conducive to worship and contemplation of the Blessed Sacrament. Yes, Vatican II paved the way for many of troubles that now afflict the Catholic Church and undermine its credibility in the eyes of the watching world. We need to pray earnestly that the misguided people, some of them bishops and priests, in the vanguard of these irreverent innovations will be enlightened as to their errors and have a change of heart.
Happily the Church will survive the troublous period which it is presently passing through, remember our Lord said that the “gates of hades” (i.e. the activity of any forces hostile to the cause of good) would never prevail against the one true Church. The assaults of the powers of darkness, within and without the Church, will always be expended in vain. The Church may be infected with the spirit of the age, but it will not entirely be overcome by it. Thus I am very sanguine as to the future fortunes of the Church and so should all the faithful.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
