You're the Church. Young people are leaving in droves. What do you do?

  • Thread starter Thread starter snarflemike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t think compromising in our beliefs to accommodate the culture is the way to go. That is a problem.
 
No they are not wrong.

Music must enhance the holiness that is the Mass.

I agree with the Popes on that.

What types of music do you think are more appropriate for mass?

Do you think that your type of music is more respectful of the mass than those who do not share your taste in music?
 
Ok, I’ll give it a go to explain the issues that I have as an older millennial. However first some background, I’m an atheist, raised somewhat culturally Catholic and went to Catholic state school in the UK. My paternal grandmother, as I’m currently finding out, was/is a more devout Catholic than I’d realised. I haven’t been in a Catholic church other than for my wife’s graduation since the late 90’s.

Firstly I’d like to say that architecture and music choices are really the least of the Church’s problems, for example my favourite cathedral is The Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral of Christ the King to give it it’s full title. It was designed from the ground up for VII and it’s a stunning piece of modern architecture.

One thing I really don’t like is the Church dictating what people can and can’t do in their own bedrooms, while their leadership ignore their own teachings. There is also the hypocrisy, to quote the British comedian And Parsons, “Having people who never have sex, telling people who have sex, how to have sex.” That’s without getting into the treatment of LGBTQ+ people both by the Church and laity if this forum is any guide.

With the abuse scandal the Church needs to stand up and take ownership of its mistakes, and stop thinking that it’s “the gays” causing a problem. Yes it was a minority of priests but it was a systemic failure of oversight that amplified the problem imo because of the Catholic concept of “Scandal”.

I would say that cathesis (sp?) needs to be improved, I’d never heard of the CCC before I joined this forum, so that would have at least helped me.

I’m not saying that addressing these issues would have kept me or would draw me back, but it would I think help to stem the tide somewhat.
 
Actually, attendance In the US started dropping off from it’s high point in about 1957, well before Vatican 2 was even proposed, let alone finished. And attendance did not take a nose dive right after - nor has there been a nose dive since; it has been a slow and gradual dropping off of attendance.

furthermore, everyone assumes that the stuff hit the fan after Vatican 2, and the Church went into a tail spin. That comes from only looking at Europe and North America as if it were the sum total of the Church.

A prime example is Poland’ the implementation of the Vatican 2 documents (note the plural - there are 16) went quite well and effectively. The contingent in Europe and North America who appeared to thing that the documents were simply a starting place for “revision” were symptomatic of issues particular to those areas, and not reflective of the Church in general.

What also seems to be missing is the perspective of the Council of Trent; some of the changes Trent made took upwards of 100 years to be implemented effectively. It should be of no articular surprise that Vatican 2 will take more time before all of the changes are processed and implemented.

So no, Vatican 2 is not responsible for the impact progressives have made in Europe and North America; the progressives themselves (along with bishops who seemed to be caught in a mindset of “mid level management” rather than shepherds) are responsible for the “tail wagging the dog”.
 
That’s impressive quote mining skills VV I’m impressed. jk.

Yeah probably not, but do you not think it’s important to hear from those on the outside?
 
Pope John XXIII announced his intention to convene the council in January 1959. The Church was well aware of what was going on in society. I think “progressives” is the wrong word. The Church is in charge of progress not outsiders.

No more time is needed to implement things Vatican II never proposed.

 
Ok, so if you’ve heard them before they must be being addressed then?
 
The Catholic Church has many memebers so yes, but it might not always be in the way you want.
 
Last edited:
The Novus Ordo came into being BECAUSE of Vatican 2. I know V2 set no doctrine so it can be argued, weakly IMO, that it did not mandate the Novus Ordo. The Latin Mass was discouraged because of V2. Liturgical abuses started, belief in the real presence dropped, attendance dropped, fertility rates dropped. If you truly believe this is all unrelated and coincidental I don’t know what else to say. It may be true that V2 didn’t CAUSE all of the problems directly but it was the fruits of and attitudes of the council that led to this.
 
“It may be true that V2 didn’t CAUSE all of the problems directly but it was the fruits of and attitudes of the council that led to this.”

Nothing said or done by the council led to to anything bad. Dissidents inside and outside the Church came into our neighborhoods to preach their false gospel. I saw and heard them. Those inside the Church did all they could to wreck it.
 
edwest211 said:
Nothing said or done by the council led to to anything bad.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I can name dozens of bad things that happened but saying those things here gets people banned and/or censored. We surely both have different ideas of what is and isn’t “bad” so this is an impossible thing for either of us to prove.
 
I was there. I saw things happen. And I found good evidence of other things that happened during the 1960s that I did not see. The proof is there.
 
From another outsiders view (me)

It seems all churches, not just Catholic, is bleeding. Our modern society is certainly the cause. I think all churches have two basic choices.
  1. Maintain the faith completely, all the doctrines and dogmas and continue to bleed. The various churches will become much less relevant to society but will be true to their roots.
    Or
  2. Change the doctrines and dogmas to accept modern society views and stay relevant and perhaps keep or increase participation.
It’s certainly not up to me or general society which course any church takes but the choice is really between a church that is relevant or one that is not. Of course what every church WANTS is to be faithful to its roots and stay relevant but that horse has already left the barn in my observations.

Societies do eventually change. It’s possible that a greatly shrunken church may come back in the future but it will most likely not be in our lifetime. Or, it could get even worse. I know this is a doom and gloom scenario but the evidence is all ready out there. I also know that most of the members here would prefer the faith stay true and have to accept a much smaller, less relevant (to the rest of society) faith.
 
Last edited:
That’s called anecdotal evidence. It doesn’t prove anything beyond what your own experience was.

The dissidents inside the Church were preaching false gospel as you said. You realize that those same dissidents were heavily involved in the council right? The fact that the council was called and there wasn’t even a doctrine to clarify is a red flag to me.
 
Pattylt said:
Maintain the faith completely, all the doctrines and dogmas and continue to bleed. The various churches will become much less relevant to society but will be true to their roots.
Click to expand...
Abandoning the doctrines and dogma is what will make the Church irrelevant. I would rather be part of a Church of 100 members that worships our Lord as he commanded than to belong to billions who worship the man made societal expectations.
 
I have heard members of the Church hierarchy say on Catholic radio that the Church in the West will get smaller but that’s not the point. Today, the heads of seminaries are looking for ‘quality not quantity,’ and the Holy Spirit will move across the West even as it becomes mission territory.
 
Which is what I predicted in my post. I don’t disagree with you except the part about relevancy. A church of 100 members will only be relevant to its own laity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top