What were the problems before Vatican II?

[manualman]

What do we need to evangelize the Orthodox with?

Same thing the Church needs to evangelize her own members and the rest of the world with: the Gospel. As catholics, we recognize that none of us are the finished product yet. Conversion is a life lived, not a singular event (like some protestants see it).

The way I see it, Jesus clearly prayed for his Church to be ONE, unified not just invisibly, but visibly as a witness to the world. As long as we sqabble amongst ourselves, we will make little progress in evangelizing the Islamic world. That’s going to take a combined effort. The EO may not need to be evangelized in the way that muslims and Hindus, or even evangelical protestants do, but I think it is an error to say or imply that everything is fine the way it is. The Church is simply not supposed to be divided and it IS part of our mission to do whatever we morally can to heal divisions. If ‘evangelizing’ isn’t the right word, fine. I’m open to suggestions on the right one. But it’s more than just reconciliation. There are a few genuine issues in which both sides can’t be right. That’s gonna be a tough nut to crack.

 

[manualman]

… Take for example the recent resignation of Ukrainian Catholic Major Archbishop Cardinal Husar. While he’s not a Patriarch in title, he’s seen as Patriarch in his own Church. I’m sure the Orthodox are watching closely. How he’s replaced will reflect the process how patriarchs are elected in Eastern Churches. On the other hand, the Orthodox also don’t see the head of the Ukrainian Catholics as a Patriarch (believing they belong to the Moscow Patriarch) and would also watch closely is he’s treated as a Major Archbishop or a Patriarch.

…

Could you elaborate a bit on this? I’m admittedly ignorant of the issue and would appreciate the education. I presume you’re referrng to EO objection to papal appointment of bishops and the authority it implies? I’ve noticed Greek Orthodox churches here in Illinois. Since this region was clearly evangelized first by Latins, do the Greek Orthodox here submit to Latin bishops and leadership selection? If not, why the inconsistency? PM is fine if its considered a tangent here.

 

[CStanford]

I just finished reading “Theological Highlights of Vatican II” by Pope Benedict 16th, which was quite interesting. Being born after Vatican II, and its implementation, I have little knowledge of how the Church “thought” before Vatican II, or what the Church looked like. The intention of the book was not really to explore the specific theological beliefs from before the Council, but one can infer from the new what the old may have looked like. But my question is how did various aspects of the pre-Vatican II theology present itself in the world as specific issues.

Great question. I don’t have a precise answer but I do know this - a trainwreck is rarely the answer to ANY problem.

 

[StTommyMore]

Great question. I don’t have a precise answer but I do know this - a trainwreck is rarely the answer to ANY problem.

Vatican II was hardly a “train-wreck” as you so disrespectfully put it. Dogmatic or not, Extraordinary or Ordinary Magisterium, it was still an Ecumenical Council and is not to be mocked. To mock a Council is to mock the Church.

 

[ProVobis]

To mock a Council is to mock the Church.

Or any major encyclical, such as Veterum Sapientia or Humanae Vitae, for that matter.

 

[InquisitorMax]

Priests were experimenting with the Mass before the council. I don’t know the whole history of the council. I think the problems are that the documents meaning and intention can be interpreted how you want: they can read as Traditional or as giving latitude to experimentation. This is very bad for a legal document. It should be clearer.

Another thing that may shock the faithful is that a lot of the bishops wanted and intended that we have a situation like we have now: more democracy or self-direction in the Church and more lay activity in mass.

I think the Pope said somewhere that the council is conceived by some as being a Super-Dogma: it overrides everything that came before. It doesn’t, or shouldn’t.

I can’t wait for time and piety to flush all the nonsense down the sacrarium of history.

 

[laszlo]

The question was what, not how.

The only allowed how to evangelize Orthodox people is through intermarriages and the insistence of the Catholic party on the conversion. This is how Muslims and Jews gain most of their converts.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Could you elaborate a bit on this? I’m admittedly ignorant of the issue and would appreciate the education. I presume you’re referrng to EO objection to papal appointment of bishops and the authority it implies? I’ve noticed Greek Orthodox churches here in Illinois. Since this region was clearly evangelized first by Latins, do the Greek Orthodox here submit to Latin bishops and leadership selection? If not, why the inconsistency? PM is fine if its considered a tangent here.

Basically it will show the Orthodox to what extent the Pope would “meddle” in the affairs of a sui juris Church.

The Orthodox does not submit to Catholic Bishops at all. They have their own Bishops. Same for Eastern Catholics, they would have their own Bishops who control their own parishes. The difference is the Eastern Bishops are in communion with the Pope, the Orthodox are not.

I don’t think this is off-topc since this is touched by Vatican II. The Chruch’s commitment to unification with the Orthodox and even the Protestants is one of the blessings of Vatican II. Some here do not agree with the “softening” of the language of the Church but it does have its fruits. There are some Orthodox now how are more respectul and open of the Catholic Church, and there are Anglicans who are coming home. Much work still needs to be done but we seem to be heading the right direction.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Same thing the Church needs to evangelize her own members and the rest of the world with: the Gospel. As catholics, we recognize that none of us are the finished product yet. Conversion is a life lived, not a singular event (like some protestants see it).

The way I see it, Jesus clearly prayed for his Church to be ONE, unified not just invisibly, but visibly as a witness to the world. As long as we sqabble amongst ourselves, we will make little progress in evangelizing the Islamic world. That’s going to take a combined effort. The EO may not need to be evangelized in the way that muslims and Hindus, or even evangelical protestants do, but I think it is an error to say or imply that everything is fine the way it is. The Church is simply not supposed to be divided and it IS part of our mission to do whatever we morally can to heal divisions. If ‘evangelizing’ isn’t the right word, fine. I’m open to suggestions on the right one. But it’s more than just reconciliation. There are a few genuine issues in which both sides can’t be right. That’s gonna be a tough nut to crack.

But our objective with the Orthodox is union, not “evangelization”. The term means we have something to teach them, but really they do not have anything else to learn from us. The issue of Papal Primacy is not a matter of evangelization but a matter of discussion and acceptance. They need to stay Orthodox and come into communion with us, they do not need to be made Catholic in the sense that they will be changed in how they worship and believe.

 

[TMC]

The 4 Constitutions of the XXI Ecumenical Council addressed the problems:

• Sacrosanctum Concilium: liturgical renowal. This started with St Pius X, and the council summarized the principles.
• Dei Verbum. Up to venerable Pius XII the Tridentine definition was accepted: The Scripture was dictated word to Word by the Holy Spirit. The Divino Afflatu Spiritu and other decisions softened the understanding. In my opinion the question: ‘What the revelation is and means for us?’ - is still unresolved. Our pope suggests (Milestones) that the revelation is God’s continuous communication with the world.
• Lumen Gentium : the previous Church was considered only as the pope and the bishops, the priests were mere executors, and the only right of the laity was to receive the teaching and the sacraments. Before the council either the lower clergy and the laity wanted greater role. The council tried to give directions
• Gaudium et Spes : what is the relation between the Church and the World. This question was introduced only during the council. We still do not know the answer.

I agree with much of what you have to say here, except that I disagree with your suggestion that fundamentalism and clericalism were the norm during all of Church history until Vatican II. Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium were in part intended to stop the Church from drifting in those directions.

 

[Iotaunum]

The 4 Constitutions of the XXI Ecumenical Council addressed the problems:

• Sacrosanctum Concilium: liturgical renowal. This started with St Pius X, and the council summarized the principles.

• St Pius X never started the so-called Liturgical renewal/reform which ended up in the New Mass at all. If you read the history of the movement and the authors pushing for this reform and their views, you will find that it has nothing to do with the intentions of Gueranger etc who started the authentic movement. St Pius X issued a Motu Proprio on sacred music, but would have been horrified by the so- called reformers of the late 50’s and 60’s etc. To say that Vatican II’s document summarised the principles of the same movement originating under Pius IX, Leo XIII and St Pius X is to misunderstand it. Vatican II laid out the principles of a paralell movement, which started gaining way in the late 40’s, with contrary notions.

• In my opinion the question: ‘What the revelation is and means for us?’ - is still unresolved. Our pope suggests (Milestones) that the revelation is God’s continuous communication with the world.

• Perhaps you could explain further. I dont know what exacly is unresolved.

• Lumen Gentium : the previous Church was considered only as the pope and the bishops, the priests were mere executors, and the only right of the laity was to receive the teaching and the sacraments. Before the council either the lower clergy and the laity wanted greater role. The council tried to give directions

• The Church was never considered as only the Pope and the Bishops - the Priests being “mere executors” etc. The Church is hierarchical, not a democracy. Look at the errors of collegiality and even priests councils today where disobediance is the norm.

• Gaudium et Spes : what is the relation between the Church and the World. This question was introduced only during the council. We still do not know the answer.

• The Church and the world are at variance with one another to some degree. This question was dealt with many times in many encyclials before the Council.

 

[edwest2]

A booklet was published in 1962 by The America Press, titled “The 2nd Vatican Council.” Cover price was 50 cents. It includes a section titled “Problems of the Modern Church.” An interview was conducted with Joseph Folliet, described as “well known in Western Europe as a Catholic thinker, editor and writer.” One of his recent books at the time was World Catholicism Today, which “reviews some of the modern Church’s problems.”

Keep in mind that the Cuban Missile Crisis had just occurred. The Joint Chiefs wanted to go to war. In fact, a relative of mine was in the Army and stationed on the east coast at the time and his entire company was ordered to Florida.

Communism was a big concern.

Peace,
Ed

 

[RB2]

Just off the cuff, but perhaps one major problem before Vatican 2 was that the Church had been unbelievably effective in evangelizing pagan cultures for 1,900 years, but had troublingly little success in evangelizing other monotheists (Jews, protestants, Eastern Orthodox). Perhaps one motivation was to re-examine the way the truth of the gospel is proclaimed to address that poor performance?

Not that it has yet succeeded, mind you. Ask the average Joe catholic on the street these days and he probably thinks we aren’t even SUPPOSED to evangelize those folks.

This is a good answer.
Up to that time, Catholics could have been viewed as being apart or ghettoized in their communities. After WWII this all changed and Catholics and Protestants socialized heavily, shared high incomes, and the social ceiling evaporated, the previous stigmatization was gone but the Church since the Council of Trent had been setup to staunch the flow of Catholics from Catholicism towards Protestantism. The purpose of Vatican II was to reverse things and not make Catholicism look segregrated and ghettoized. The idea was to take down the walls of Trent around the ghetto. All good ideas, however the sexual and cultural tidal wave/ revolution swept Catholics away. The Bishops, Vatican did not forsee this, although it had been happening to Protestantism in gradual bites and chunks.The liberal bishops and theologians also mucked things up as well. Too complex to get into on the internet unless I write a 10 page paper.

Ive read about 4 of the best books on Vatican II , the history and reason and effects. **I wanted to really, really know what was responsible for me and my family, and the majority of Catholics being swept away in the 60’s,70’s,80s. **
Stay away from internet discussions if you want to learn about all this.
Best book I found was
The Rise and Fall of the Catholic Church in America by David Carlin
amazon.com/Decline-Fall-Catholic-Church-America/dp/1928832792/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1298142345&sr=8-1

Its analysis is totally extendible to the whole western culture, Europe, et al.

I’ve read about 4 of the best books in this area. The poop that fills most of these discussions on the subject is usually just that! With the ‘traditionalist catholic’ view being the worst. I am an orthodox(adjective) - straight down the line Catholic.

 

[laszlo]

I have several acquittance who became Jewish through marriage, and two acquittance who became Muslim through marriage. This is their evangelization. All were previously Catholics.

usccb.org/seia/5-264.pdf is the USCCB document, which made me start to understand what went wrong with the Ecumenism: give the victory to the stronger insisting party.

 

[StTommyMore]

I have several acquittance who became Jewish through marriage, and two acquittance who became Muslim through marriage. This is their evangelization. All were previously Catholics.

usccb.org/seia/5-264.pdf is the USCCB document, which made me start to understand what went wrong with the Ecumenism: give the victory to the stronger insisting party.

This is precisely why mixed marriages are not recommended and need ecclesiastical approval (CCC 1635)

 

[laszlo]

This is precisely why mixed marriages are not recommended and need ecclesiastical approval (CCC 1635)

My mother was Lutheran also my wife was Lutheran. In both cases the Church required then to sign a document that the children will be raised Catholics. My wife concerted to ve Catholic

The article usccb.org/seia/5-264.pdf says that approval is necessary, but if the parties insist in the marriage, then it can be celebrated in the Orthodox church and it is tolerable if the children are raised in orthodox faith. This means that the orthodox church is allowed to evangelize (to get new people to their religion) to the expense of the Catholics.

This makes it understandable that in the about 20 miles area of my domicile, - where in the last 20 years since I live here the population doubled, - why is 8 new Orthodox churches and also 8 new synagogues built and only three Catholic churches. We do not believe in the strength of our faith.

As for the mixed religion marriages unless one of the spouses subdues to the other (as it happened in my fathers case and in my case) the marriage should not be done.

 

[edwest2]

This is a good answer.
Up to that time, Catholics could have been viewed as being apart or ghettoized in their communities. After WWII this all changed and Catholics and Protestants socialized heavily, shared high incomes, and the social ceiling evaporated, the previous stigmatization was gone but the Church since the Council of Trent had been setup to staunch the flow of Catholics from Catholicism towards Protestantism. The purpose of Vatican II was to reverse things and not make Catholicism look segregrated and ghettoized. The idea was to take down the walls of Trent around the ghetto. All good ideas, however the sexual and cultural tidal wave/ revolution swept Catholics away. The Bishops, Vatican did not forsee this, although it had been happening to Protestantism in gradual bites and chunks.The liberal bishops and theologians also mucked things up as well. Too complex to get into on the internet unless I write a 10 page paper.

Ive read about 4 of the best books on Vatican II , the history and reason and effects. **I wanted to really, really know **what was responsible for me and my family, and the majority of Catholics being swept away in the 60’s,70’s,80s.
Stay away from internet discussions if you want to learn about all this.
Best book I found was
The Rise and Fall of the Catholic Church in America by David Carlin
amazon.com/Decline-Fall-Catholic-Church-America/dp/1928832792/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1298142345&sr=8-1

Its analysis is totally extendible to the whole western culture, Europe, et al.

I’ve read about 4 of the best books in this area. The poop that fills most of these discussions on the subject is usually just that! With the ‘traditionalist catholic’ view being the worst. I am an orthodox(adjective) - straight down the line Catholic.

You really want to know? Ask Adult Bookstore owners that opened in the 1970s. The same with strip clubs and topless bars.

Find out why the Hippies came into our neighborhoods in the late 1960s and about Woodstock.

Pope Paul VI had Humanae Vitae published in 1968 precisely because The Pill was becoming more widely available. Ask the creator of All in the Family about his show. Ask the creator of Mary Hartman also.

Contact the National Organization for Women and have them explain Women’s Liberation. You can probably get a message to Glora Steinem, co-founder of Ms. Magazine, which is the origin of that word.

A full-scale attack was launched against all Catholics and Christians. Throw in legalized abortion in 1973, porn on cable in the 1980s, and No-Fault Divorce.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ConstantineTG]

This is a good answer.
Up to that time, Catholics could have been viewed as being apart or ghettoized in their communities. After WWII this all changed and Catholics and Protestants socialized heavily, shared high incomes, and the social ceiling evaporated, the previous stigmatization was gone but the Church since the Council of Trent had been setup to staunch the flow of Catholics from Catholicism towards Protestantism. The purpose of Vatican II was to reverse things and not make Catholicism look segregrated and ghettoized. The idea was to take down the walls of Trent around the ghetto. All good ideas, however the sexual and cultural tidal wave/ revolution swept Catholics away. The Bishops, Vatican did not forsee this, although it had been happening to Protestantism in gradual bites and chunks.The liberal bishops and theologians also mucked things up as well. Too complex to get into on the internet unless I write a 10 page paper.

Ive read about 4 of the best books on Vatican II , the history and reason and effects. **I wanted to really, really know **what was responsible for me and my family, and the majority of Catholics being swept away in the 60’s,70’s,80s.
Stay away from internet discussions if you want to learn about all this.
Best book I found was
The Rise and Fall of the Catholic Church in America by David Carlin
amazon.com/Decline-Fall-Catholic-Church-America/dp/1928832792/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1298142345&sr=8-1

Its analysis is totally extendible to the whole western culture, Europe, et al.

I’ve read about 4 of the best books in this area. The poop that fills most of these discussions on the subject is usually just that! With the ‘traditionalist catholic’ view being the worst. I am an orthodox(adjective) - straight down the line Catholic.

You hit the nail on the head. Vatican II was a convenient scape goat because secularism took center stage during and right after it. Fact is secularism has been on the rise for many years already at the time of Vatican II. Everything that happened during and after Vatican II is the Church trying to fight secularism and modernism. The OF is the Church coming down to where the masses (people) are and meeting them where they are. This is a contrast of the Apostles being fishermen and fishers of men, they go to where the fish are, compared to Noah who basically built a ship and asked the people to come to him to be saved.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I have several acquittance who became Jewish through marriage, and two acquittance who became Muslim through marriage. This is their evangelization. All were previously Catholics.

usccb.org/seia/5-264.pdf is the USCCB document, which made me start to understand what went wrong with the Ecumenism: give the victory to the stronger insisting party.

This is precisely why mixed marriages are not recommended and need ecclesiastical approval (CCC 1635)

The difficulty here is many wouldn’t give up marriage for the sake of faith. That is the ideal but not the reality in most cases. So what do you want the Church to do? Lose a believer in one of the spouses? Or give in and keep one of the spouses Catholic in the hopes that through God’s mercy the familly will be converted through that spouse? Sure, there will be instances the Catholic spouse leaves the faith, and instances where the non-Catholic spouse becomes Catholic. Its not going to be a home run every single time. But its not like you could have done anything beforehand to stop the Catholic from marrying a non-Catholic.

 

[RB2]

Best book I read on the subject:
amazon.com/Decline-Fall-Catholic-Church-America/dp/1928832792/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1298162117&sr=8-1
Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America by David Carlin.
Simply the best!​

Any other general behind the scenes book with names and key players will supplement the above:
Turmoil & Truth: The Historical Roots of the Modern Crisis in the Catholic Church by Phillip Trower

amazon.com/Turmoil-Truth-Historical-Modern-Catholic/dp/0898709806/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1298162142&sr=8-1-spell

The Desolate City: Revolution in the Catholic Church by Anne Roche Mudderidge
amazon.com/gp/product/0060660465

The Faithful Departed: Collapse of Bostons Catholic Culture by Phillip Lawler
amazon.com/Faithful-Departed-Collapse-Bostons-Catholic/dp/1594033749/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1298162192&sr=8-2