Article about Vatican II: "saved the church"
#1
I forget how to embed but http://catholicozarks.blogspot.com/2015/...m.html?m=1 is the link. I would like to hear people's opinions.
Reply
#2
Interesting. Not sure what what to make of it. I will say that some people I know who were going to Mass pre-Vatican II have said that the Mass often seemed rigid and mechanical, similar to how the author describes. That being said, that "rigidity " can occur anywhere, depending upon the parish, pastor, and the individual mindset. If V2 did save the Church, then it just reinforces my theory that the issue wasn't the council per se, but the "spirit of Vatican II" combined with poor press (the Church says one thing, but the press reports something else, the telephone game) that led to the Woodstock like abuses we see today.
Reply
#3
The author doesn't make much of an argument for the Council "saving the Church." If anything, his argument is that the decline would have happened either way, even saying it would have just happened slower without the Council.  He says it happening slower would have led to worse things, but I don't see how that follows.  The speed of the changes is what shocked and disoriented the faithful. 

I do agree there would have been some decline one way or the other, but I don't see how it could be denied that the event of Vatican II didn't serve as a catalyst to speed up and worsen that decline. The debatable question is whether that acceleration was the logical outcome of a docile obedience to the actual acts of the Council or something else.

I tend to go with "something else." What encapsulated the problem for me was a review I read in a journal of a book I had found edifying by Jeremiah Newman (who would later become a bishop), called "Change and the Catholic Church." The review criticizes the author for approaching the concept of change more in the spirit of Humani Generis and--here's the kicker--treating Vatican II as the culmination of aggiornamento, rather than as its starting point.

Most of the radical ruptures that accelerated the decline and disoriented the faithful came not from such docile obedience to the formal acts, but from further change at both the unofficial and official level (the liturgical reform being the prime example of the latter). 
Reply
#4
The blog writer is drinking some bad stuff lol
Reply
#5
Quote:I am convinced that the collapse of the Catholic Church in the Western world, in the latter half of the 20th century, was inevitable and was going to happen anyway, with or without Vatican II.

I am convinced as well, but the difference would have been the rate.  The collapse would have been slow had Vatican II not been called, and time would allow for the ability for a true ecumencial council to be called to address the cause for this fomenting decline, namely the error that had been brewing since the 19th-Century, Modernism.

All Vatican II did in my opinion was accelerate that decline, by assisting Modernism.


Quote:The Second Vatican Council, combined with the witness of Saint John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, are what breathed life back into the Catholic Church during that inevitable and unavoidable Western collapse in the latter half of the 20th century.

Perhaps in numbers, but in faith?  Pope Benedict XVI did attempt to breathe life back into the Church, but whatever small advances he made (under his pontificate the seminarians grew) Pope Francis has wiped out.

Regardless, without Vatican II we would never have the problems today namely:  Loss of Catholics to Protestantism due to the liturgy of the Mass being twisted to look and "feel" more like a Protestant service; LWRC; SSPX; sedevacantism ect.


Quote:What many of my good traditional Catholic friends just don't understand is that the collapse of Christian faith in the Western world was UNIVERSAL. It didn't just affect the Catholic Church. Nearly every western Christian denomination was affected.

Protestantism is not Christian  :eyeroll:


Quote:Had Vatican II never happened at all, the implosion of Western Catholicism would have been worse not better. I say this because, prior to the Council, most Catholics generally ignored the Scriptures, and saw Catholicism as a list of rules and traditions, not a living and breathing Church organism.

Most Catholic's, including our priests and religious, still do not see the Church as a living organism.  As for rules and traditions...that is still a problem.  Are you ignoring our Holy Father's glaringly obvious attacks on canon law and tradition with charges of "neo-pelagianism"?

As for Scriptures, sure more Catholics are probably reading more (doubtful of that, since he has given no proof, and most Catholics I talk to still haven't read the Gospels)...but I don't attribute that to Vatican II.  In fact after Vatican II and the NO, we saw less reading of Sacred Scripture...not more.  The Mass would end with a reading from the Gospel of St. John, this has been removed in the NO.


Quote:Some liberal Modernists took advantage of ambiguities within Vatican II, to introduce those innovations and renovations they had been planning since the 1950s. It is interesting to note however, that these are the very same people who opposed the proper implementation of Vatican II as taught by Saint John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. When Vatican II was implemented properly, by these two great popes, what we saw was a PRESERVATION not a destruction of the Church.

Like kissing the Koran and calling it a 'holy book' and engaging in pagan worship ceremonies?  When the Church is filled with martyrs who died grueling and agonizing deaths for refusing to simply pinch something as miniscule as incense to the emperor of Rome.


Quote:I cannot stress this enough. As a former Protestant, I know. The errors of Modernism, that my traditional Catholic friends rightly oppose, are not native to the Catholic Church, and they certainly had nothing to do with Vatican II.

As a former Protestant, I cannot stress enough that you should read the Church Fathers, Concilium Tridentinum, Syllabus Errorum, Mortalium Animos....and then read Nostra Aetate of Vatican II and tell me it's the same message.


Quote:My family had been Lutheran for nearly 500 years. Yes, our Lutheran tradition was ruined by Modernism in the 1970s and 80s. How did Vatican II do that? During my years as an American Baptist, I watched our denomination slip into the errors of Modernism. How did Vatican II accomplish that? While I was an Evangelical as a young adult, I watched our congregations split, and gradually accept some Modernist ideas. How did Vatican II pull that off? When I was an Anglican, I watched The Episcopal Church commit ecclesiastical suicide by ordaining women and open homosexuals, and embracing divorce, abortion and same-sex 'marriage'. How did Vatican II get the Anglicans to do that?

Because despite what you may choose to believe as an ex-Protestant...these Protestants who although may level all sorts of vile, visceral hatred to Holy Mother Church...they are still children of Her...even if wicked bastard children.  Without the Holy Church, there would be no Scripture, no concept of the Holy Trinity, or basic morals.

Protestants may hate the Church the same way Satan hates God; but without their creator, they cease to exist.


Quote:The answer to all of this is that Vatican II has nothing to do with any of this.

No, heresy does, but Vatican II plays a pivotal role.


Quote:Modernism swept over Western Christianity like a tsunami, and it all started in the 1950s, right after World War II

Started much earlier, read Pascendi Dominici Gregis


Quote:However, when Vatican II was used properly, it became an instrument of preservation, that slowed the decline of Catholicism in comparison to what was happening in mainline Protestant denominations.

:LOL:


Quote:Some of my traditional Catholic friends will object and say that Vatican II let that delusion into the Catholic Church. I disagree. I say the delusion was already there. It was already making inroads, and it would have burst forth anyway. Except without Vatican II, the damage would have been so much worse.

Really?


Quote:The faithful would not have been reoriented toward the study of Scripture, and the faithful would still see the Church in a very mechanical way.

They still see it that way...that's why we're attacked as neo-pelagians.


Quote:The end result would have been corrupted translations of the old Latin mass, instead of the new vernacular mass,

Which butchered the Mass, striped it of numerous prayers...and promulgated a heresy for decades until the new translation during the Benedict's pontificate...do we not all forget the incorrect translation of the Eucharistic prayer?

Quote: a slower (more complete) infiltration of Modernist ideas into the Catholic Church, resulting in a much bigger and more damaging collapse that would have happened later, and the Church would have less tools at hand to deal with it.

So a slash to the artery is better than an infection?




He goes on to blame Western society for the problem and not Vatican II.  I agree that is the culprit, but it still is a poor defence for Vatican II.
Reply
#6
Article Wrote:Had Vatican II never happened at all, the implosion of Western Catholicism would have been worse not better. I say this because, prior to the Council, most Catholics generally ignored the Scriptures, and saw Catholicism as a list of rules and traditions, not a living and breathing Church organism.  As we have seen in recent decades, Catholics with this mindset cannot withstand the onslaught of Modernism on one hand (which tells them that tradition is obsolete), and Protestant Fundamentalism on the other hand (which tells them that Catholicism contradicts Scripture).

I think catechesis was wretched before Vatican II -- but still lightyears ahead of what it is now. I do think there was a rigidity that HAD to go. But "the spirit of Vatican II" threw the baby out with the bathwater big time.

Vatican II didn't slow down the almost "inevitible" implosion that took place after the sexual revolution. Quite the opposite; it's the "high liturgy" type faith communities that are still around. It's Latin Mass communities that are fostering priestly and religious vocations.

The writer then goes on to ask a bunch of questions about how Vatican II caused various problems in Protestant "churches." Well, it didn't. It caused problems -- either directly because of the documents, or because of how those documents were interpreted (a debate for another time) -- for the Catholic Church. Vatican II was a Catholic council, you see. Brother!

But, again, I do most definitely believe that the rigidity, bad catechesis, and leaving Catholics unarmed against Protestant evangelizing were major problems that have definitely taken their toll. If I were King of the Forest, catechesis would be awesome, and catechumens would absolutely have all the arguments they need to defend Catholicism against Protestant nonsense. I would definitely encourage Catholics to read Sacred Scripture -- the Douay, with Catholic footnotes and Catholic study guides. And, most importantly, I would stress conversion of the heart and talk a lot about judgmentalism and "toxic trad-ness". If I could arrange things, I'd also definitely encourage the building of traditional Catholic communities, something Prots have us beat at hands down (the community part, obviously, not the "traditional Catholic" part).

Things simply weren't perfect before Vatican II. Bugnini already made his inways, Modernism was already infecting many priests and religious, rigidity made Catholicism less a religion of joy than of fear. All of that had to change. But Vatican II didn't change any of it in a good way. Not at ALL.

Reply
#7
(01-15-2016, 04:20 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
Article Wrote:Had Vatican II never happened at all, the implosion of Western Catholicism would have been worse not better. I say this because, prior to the Council, most Catholics generally ignored the Scriptures, and saw Catholicism as a list of rules and traditions, not a living and breathing Church organism.  As we have seen in recent decades, Catholics with this mindset cannot withstand the onslaught of Modernism on one hand (which tells them that tradition is obsolete), and Protestant Fundamentalism on the other hand (which tells them that Catholicism contradicts Scripture).

I think catechesis was wretched before Vatican II -- but still lightyears ahead of what it is now. I do think there was a rigidity that HAD to go. But "the spirit of Vatican II" threw the baby out with the bathwater big time.

Vatican II didn't slow down the almost "inevitible" implosion that took place after the sexual revolution. Quite the opposite; it's the "high liturgy" type faith communities that are still around. It's Latin Mass communities that are fostering priestly and religious vocations.

The writer then goes on to ask a bunch of questions about how Vatican II caused various problems in Protestant "churches." Well, it didn't. It caused problems -- either directly because of the documents, or because of how those documents were interpreted (a debate for another time) -- for the Catholic Church. Vatican II was a Catholic council, you see. Brother!

But, again, I do most definitely believe that the rigidity, bad catechesis, and leaving Catholics unarmed against Protestant evangelizing were major problems that have definitely taken their toll. If I were King of the Forest, catechesis would be awesome, and catechumens would absolutely have all the arguments they need to defend Catholicism against Protestant nonsense. I would definitely encourage Catholics to read Sacred Scripture -- the Douay, with Catholic footnotes and Catholic study guides. And, most importantly, I would stress conversion of the heart and talk a lot about judgmentalism and "toxic trad-ness". If I could arrange things, I'd also definitely encourage the building of traditional Catholic communities, something Prots have us beat at hands down (the community part, obviously, not the "traditional Catholic" part).

Things simply weren't perfect before Vatican II. Bugnini already made his inways, Modernism was already infecting many priests and religious, rigidity made Catholicism less a religion of joy than of fear. All of that had to change. But Vatican II didn't change any of it in a good way. Not at ALL.

You can lead a horse to water, but cannot force it to drink. 

The catechesis was there, but it was simply a case with read the Baltimore Catechism and repeat what you read back to the priest for a year and then you were in the Church.  Also I doubt so many Catholics left the faith to become Protestants...most likely it was the other way around.  Catholics who left, left to become atheists or secularists.


I simply just deny this narrative of mean old nuns beating kids with rulers and cranky curmudgeon Irish priests, who drank more than prayed, of the Church prior to that council.  I'm sure there were problems, but I doubt things were so dreary and dreadful as it's made out to be by our gay happy Vatican-II-ists
Reply
#8
(01-15-2016, 06:20 PM)austenbosten Wrote: You can lead a horse to water, but cannot force it to drink. 

The catechesis was there, but it was simply a case with read the Baltimore Catechism and repeat what you read back to the priest for a year and then you were in the Church.  Also I doubt so many Catholics left the faith to become Protestants...most likely it was the other way around.  Catholics who left, left to become atheists or secularists.


I simply just deny this narrative of mean old nuns beating kids with rulers and cranky curmudgeon Irish priests, who drank more than prayed, of the Church prior to that council.  I'm sure there were problems, but I doubt things were so dreary and dreadful as it's made out to be by our gay happy Vatican-II-ists

I deny that "mean old nun" narrative, too. But I still maintain that catechesis was sorely lacking (though, again, it was much better than it is today. But that's not saying much at all.).

LOTS of Catholics left for Protestantism. And the idea that "the Baltimore Catechism was there, so what else was needed?" is precisely the problem. The Baltimore Catechism was great, and I wish it'd return as opposed to what we've got going now. But it wasn't nearly enough for intellectual types, and it's they you have to satisfy because it's they who get antsy with a lack of answers and then go on to lead others astray.

But the deeper point is that pure intellectual knowledge aside, there wasn't enough emphasis on a conversion of the heart. Without that, all of this is for nothing. There was a legalism that existed that simply had to go. I think that legalism was better than the free-for-all we've got now, but, again, that's not saying much. Both the head and the heart need to be satisfied, as does the need for community. Community is the one thing Catholics had nailed for a good while, when those old ethnic, parish-based neighborhoods were around. But they were purposefully destroyed. And here we are.

Since there's little we can do about restoring those old neighborhoods, practically speaking, we have to focus on sound catechesis that does more than educate 3rd graders, but can satisfy potential theologians. While the nuns of yore have an awful stereotype built around them -- an untrue stereotype! -- there was a problem with kids asking questions of nuns who didn't have the answers, and instead of getting an, "I don't know the answer to that; let's try to find out" for a response, getting a "you're being uppity" kind of response. That sort of catechesis is bound to fail. Catechesis has to be able to grow with a person. What was great for Kindergarten isn't enough for 6th grade, which isn't enough for high school, which isn't enough for college (I'm speaking in terms of general intellectual abilities at those ages. Some kids/people might need more earlier, and they should GET it).

The Baltimore Catechism type of thing is great and definitely needs to be brought back. Having simple, one or two line answers to "the great questions" is like learning the multiplication tables. Or it's like learning basic Catholic prayers by rote. And every Catholic should have that, in the ideal world. But that's not enough. To follow the metaphor, some kids have the talents and curiosity to learn calculus, and if they're not taught it, they will go astray, be angry, feel condescended to, etc.

And using the Catholic prayers by rote metaphor: those prayers are necessary and good. But they, too, are not enough. One also needs to pray in one's own words, heart to Heart, straight to God. That's where the conversion of the heart comes in. My sense is that that sort of prayer wasn't emphasized enough before the Council. But the "spirit of Vatican II" threw out the rote prayers, which, as said, are good and necessary. They're necessary for communal prayer, for instruction on how to pray, for the sake of Tradition, for discipline, for cases of emergency when one's own words fail, etc. Those prayers got tossed, and there was nothing even to replace them.

So, to sum up, I vote for sound, traditional catechesis that goes as deeply as a given person wants/needs to go intellectually and which includes arguments against Protestant arguments; rote prayer being taught as a matter of course; a great encouragement to pray in one's own words as well; and encouraging Catholics to read the Douay with Catholic study guides.
 
Reply
#9
(01-15-2016, 06:20 PM)austenbosten Wrote: I simply just deny this narrative of mean old nuns beating kids with rulers...

Those of us who lived through that period can testify that there definitely were some who fit that description.

(01-15-2016, 04:20 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: I deny that "mean old nun" narrative, too.

I knew several "mean old nuns" back in the day when corporal punishment was taken for granted.
Reply
#10
(01-15-2016, 09:21 PM)DJR Wrote:
(01-15-2016, 06:20 PM)austenbosten Wrote: I simply just deny this narrative of mean old nuns beating kids with rulers...

Those of us who lived through that period can testify that there definitely were some who fit that description.

(01-15-2016, 04:20 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: I deny that "mean old nun" narrative, too.

I knew several "mean old nuns" back in the day when corporal punishment was taken for granted.


Okay, but we are talking about a time that kids were beaten and smacked in the teeth just for leaving their shirt un-tucked.  Believe me, it didn't need to be  a nun to do the abuse, it was common all over in that time.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)