The Fruits Of Vatican Ii

[MichaelFilo]

Here I am at Belmont Abbey College in Belmont, NC. A school with 130 years of tradition and a monastary of 180 years of years of existence. However I was surprised to hear that this school is a party school, one with a history of passed out freshmen, roofs caving in because of parties upstairs that far exceeded room limits, and so forth.

When I asked what could of turned this beautiful school into what it evidently still is behind what i can see? The drop in vocations to the religious life; Vatican II, for all it's praises for bringing the Church into the modern world (a place I'm sure we'd all love to be) has had an effect on vocations. My particular school suffered in the 70's and 80's as the number of monks dropped from 60 to 16, making it fall into more or less into moral ruin for the students (less staff because the school never made enough money to support non-religious faculty with health benefits, etc.)

As I read my "Surprised by Truth" books and now "Catholicism and Fundamentalism." I see a link, problems arising in the wake of the second Vatican council; an era of conversions away from the Church rather than the usual historical path of increase in conversions (save for instances when Christians were forced into some other monotheistic religion such as Islam) to the Church. The Church's citadel on a hill of moral superiority seems to have been traded in for a lower Church view that has made her much more vulnerable.

Seeing all this, I wonder what merits the spirit of Vatican II has provided to outweigh these changes? This is certainly no bashing of the infallible teachings of the council, but rather the awesome goal of bring the Church into the modern world. Where no longer does Christ's Church immediately equate to the Catholic Church but rather subsists in the Catholic Church.

I post because this place is beautiful, and I can see having an "old school" Catholic finally taking presidency has changed much for the better, but what merits can be attributed to something that may have ruined this beauty for any given time?

[Saint Therese]

I think one must be very careful to think of everything pre-Vatican II as perfect and beautiful. There were many problems before VII as well as after. Vatican II sort of "opened the windows " into the world, and I think that the faults of hierarchy, etc that were extant before VII were made more visible afterwards. That being said, a lot of seriously wrong teaching and practice were blamed on VII. Those things however were never in the minds of the council Fathers.

[MichaelFilo]

Of course the Church has always had her problems, but a lack of vocations on this level only occurred once before in the Church, and I do not recall too clearly but it was not on this level. To think every council is a step forward in all senses is a bit erroneous. But my question is still out there, what benefits do we see today from Vatican II that outweigh certain things such as a lack of vocations that can only be tied to the Church's decision of "reconciling with the world as it has been since 1789?" I even pondered quality of priests but with the scandals that ran through the Church, and an honest evaluation of how many priests were engaged in these activities, the increased amount of homosexual priests who entered the Church in the 70's and 80's due to the drop in vocations which lead to the easing of seminary regulations in that period, and of course the priests who do "their own thing" I could not come to the conclusion that quality has improved.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' post='1371645' date='Aug 27 2007, 01:36 PM']Of course the Church has always had her problems, but a lack of vocations on this level only occurred once before in the Church, and I do not recall too clearly but it was not on this level. To think every council is a step forward in all senses is a bit erroneous. But my question is still out there, what benefits do we see today from Vatican II that outweigh certain things such as a lack of vocations that can only be tied to the Church's decision of "reconciling with the world as it has been since 1789?" I even pondered quality of priests but with the scandals that ran through the Church, and an honest evaluation of how many priests were engaged in these activities, the increased amount of homosexual priests who entered the Church in the 70's and 80's due to the drop in vocations which lead to the easing of seminary regulations in that period, and of course the priests who do "their own thing" I could not come to the conclusion that quality has improved.[/quote]


The vocations crisis has actually come to an end. Christopher West shows this in "The Good News about Sex and Marriage". Or Maybe It was Jason Evert in "If You Really Love Me". I'll look it up. But anyway religious vocations are on the rise, not the decline. Also, I do think that teh Fathers of the Council were of course trying to improve the Church. I think that what ended up happening instead was that they helped to safe guard it against falling into an even worse situation than it is in now. Had they not created the Novus Ordo Mass (and I do love the Tridentine Mass), modern protestants would have even less in common with the Church and it would be considered archaic and obsolete. The Novus Ordo Mass was necessary and does help the Church to connect to the people better. You speak of homosexual men allowed into the seminary. I do believe that the Church would be even worse without the work and changes of the council, and the Church was forced to go through a tough time. Some things did need changing to fit the time period, and if the Church had not changed the liturgy and shown that it is indeed a Church of the people more people and priests would have left the priesthood. The Second Vatican Council did not cause the modes of thought that were prevalent in the 70's. It was the priests who refused to conform to orthodox beliefs and so left. I believe the Second Vatican Council has actually saved vocations and kept the Church as vibrant as it is today. Incidentally, the youth are much more alive and active in their faith (myself included) than has ever been true before. One only needs to look at World Youth Days to see that this is true. Times change. This is a tough time, with or without Vatican II. Vatican II simply eased the passing.

Edited August 27, 2007 by aalpha1989

[kateri05]

[quote]the scandals that ran through the Church, and an honest evaluation of how many priests were engaged in these activities,[/quote]

you do understand that the majority of the these accusations are from the 1950s and 1960s before the Council even happened or had time to take effect?

its very incorrect to blame the scandals on Vatican II.

[Laudate_Dominum]

It's not surprising that there would be tough times after a Council of this kind. There were lots of changes that hit really fast and the Church is still in the process of implementing the Council. There have also been many strange things that were not called for by the Council which have helped cause confusion as harm (dissent, false interpretations of the Council, etc).

I tend to believe that the worst is over and that many things are improving as we speak. It seems nuts to say that the vocations crisis is over, there are plenty of parish consolidations, priests spread way too thin and dying religious orders. In terms of numbers vocations are certainly in a state of crisis compared with 40 years ago. What we can say is that there are indications of an upward trend and reason for hope.

Playing the blame game with the Council itself can be problematic. The Council and all of the events surrounding the Council are pretty complex and multi-faceted. Often times people try to blame to Council for everything and in my opinion fail to recognize the influence that culture and society naturally have on the Church. Western civilization is very decadent and strange and there was a general cultural revolution that coincided with the Council. This should be taken into account since the Council itself is actually pretty sweet (although I admit there are some difficult aspects and I stress that the Council has not been full implemented).

I hope this helps. Pax tecum.

[thessalonian]

The fruits of the council have not been tested yet. Confusion as to what the council really taught has caused much of the negatives to which you speak. The same thing happened after many councils. The most notable was the first Council of Nicea. In the years following the council "the fruits" as you are judging them were that 90% 0f the world became Arian due to confusion about the trinity. But eventually arianism died out and Trinitarian theology prevailed. Given time Vatican II's teachings will prevail as well. It is said that it takes about 40-60 years for a councils teachings to take hold. The new springtime is coming soon!

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1371889' date='Aug 27 2007, 05:38 PM']The fruits of the council have not been tested yet. Confusion as to what the council really taught has caused much of the negatives to which you speak. The same thing happened after many councils. The most notable was the first Council of Nicea. In the years following the council "the fruits" as you are judging them were that 90% 0f the world became Arian due to confusion about the trinity. But eventually arianism died out and Trinitarian theology prevailed. Given time Vatican II's teachings will prevail as well. It is said that it takes about 40-60 years for a councils teachings to take hold. The new springtime is coming soon![/quote]

[kateri05]

[quote]Playing the blame game with the Council itself can be problematic. The Council and all of the events surrounding the Council are pretty complex and multi-faceted. Often times people try to blame to Council for everything and in my opinion fail to recognize the influence that culture and society naturally have on the Church. Western civilization is very decadent and strange and there was a general cultural revolution that coincided with the Council. This should be taken into account since the Council itself is actually pretty sweet[/quote]

i couldn't have said it better myself

[Socrates]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' post='1371645' date='Aug 27 2007, 12:36 PM']Of course the Church has always had her problems, but a lack of vocations on this level only occurred once before in the Church, and I do not recall too clearly but it was not on this level. To think every council is a step forward in all senses is a bit erroneous. But my question is still out there, what benefits do we see today from Vatican II that outweigh certain things such as a lack of vocations that can only be tied to the Church's decision of "reconciling with the world as it has been since 1789?" I even pondered quality of priests but with the scandals that ran through the Church, and an honest evaluation of how many priests were engaged in these activities, the increased amount of homosexual priests who entered the Church in the 70's and 80's due to the drop in vocations which lead to the easing of seminary regulations in that period, and of course the priests who do "their own thing" I could not come to the conclusion that quality has improved.[/quote]
I think blaming things such as the vocations crisis, homosexual priests, etc. on the Second Vatican Council is an example of the [i]Post Hoc, Ad Proctor Hoc [/i]fallacy.

Yes, a lost of garbage went on in the Church from the mid-sixties onward, but I don't think you can accurately say this was [i]caused[/i] by Vatican II. There were a lot of dissidents looking for an excuse, any excuse, to bring their garbage into the Church. The heretical liberal theology, wild liturgical abuse, etc. that was done in the so-called "Spirit of Vatican II" actually has nothing to do with anything actually stated in the Council documents, and in fact is contrary to what was actually stated by the Council. In fact, most perpetuators of liberal "Spirit of Vat. II" nonsense have never bothered to read the council's documents.
I would challenge you, or any others who think Vatican II was wrong, to bring forth documented quotes from the Council showing where exactly such things are called for.

Also, it should be noted that the same time period which followed the Second Vatican Council also saw tremendous social and moral changes in society at large - the whole Sexual Revolution, the hippie movement, and whatnot. A lot of this carp found its way into the Church, but it's hard to blame Vatican II for starting these trends [i]outside[/i] the Church, which really had nothing to do with Vatican II.

Vatican II has been used largely as a (baseless) excuse by liberal Catholics, and as a scapegoat by "ultraconservatives" with their own agenda.

[Era Might]

The Council issued a document on Priestly training and a document on religious life. What took place in many Seminaries and religious orders after the Council did not bear any resemblance to those documents. For example:

[quote]Students who follow the venerable tradition of celibacy according to the holy and fixed laws of their own rite are to be educated to this state with great care. For renouncing thereby the companionship of marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (cf. Matt. 19:12), they embrace the Lord with an undivided love altogether befitting the new covenant, bear witness to the resurrection of the world to come (cf. Luke 20:36), and obtain a most suitable aid for the continual exercise of that perfect charity whereby they can become all things to all men in their priestly ministry. Let them deeply realize how gratefully that state ought to be received, not, indeed, only as commanded by ecclesiastical law, but as a precious gift of God for which they should humbly pray. Through the inspiration and help of the grace of the Holy Spirit let them freely and generously hasten to respond to this gift.

--"Presbyterorum Ordinis"[/quote]
Those Priests who left the Church to be married certainly were not following this exhortation. And those who looked at celibacy as an outdated and oppressive "rule" were far from the teaching of the Council:

[quote]Religious, therefore, who are striving faithfully to observe the chastity they have professed must have faith in the words of the Lord, and trusting in God's help not overestimate their own strength but practice mortification and custody of the senses. Neither should they neglect the natural means which promote health of mind and body. As a result they will not be influenced by those false doctrines which scorn perfect continence as being impossible or harmful to human development and they will repudiate by a certain spiritual instinct everything which endangers chastity.

--"Perfectae Caritatis"[/quote]
Another mandate from the Council was that Latin be retained in Priestly training, but this was not followed in many Seminaries:

[quote]Before beginning specifically ecclesiastical subjects, seminarians should be equipped with that humanistic and scientific training which young men in their own countries are wont to have as a foundation for higher studies. Moreover they are to acquire a knowledge of Latin which will enable them to understand and make use of the sources of so many sciences and of the documents of the Church. The study of the liturgical language proper to each rite should be considered necessary; a suitable knowledge of the languages of the Bible and of Tradition should be greatly encouraged.

--"Presbyterorum Ordinis"[/quote]
Here's another example of what the Council taught:

[quote]The theological disciplines, in the light of faith and under the guidance of the magisterium of the Church, should be so taught that the students will correctly draw out Catholic doctrine from divine revelation, profoundly penetrate it, make it the food of their own spiritual lives, and be enabled to proclaim, explain, and protect it in their priestly ministry.

--"Presbyterorum Ordinis"[/quote]
The modernists in the Seminaries did not teach theology "under the guidance of the magisterium" and "from divine revelation" as the Council stated. They ignored the Magisterium and distorted divine revelation to scratch their itching ears.

About religious orders the Council stated:

[quote]It redounds to the good of the Church that institutes have their own particular characteristics and work. Therefore let their founders' spirit and special aims they set before them as well as their sound traditions - all of which make up the patrimony of each institute - be faithfully held in honor.

--"Perfectae Caritatis"[/quote]
I don't know of any founder of a religious order whose spirit and special aims included disobedience to the Church, which took place in many religious communities. These communities were following neither the Council nor their founders.

[quote]Priests and Christian educators should make serious efforts to foster religious vocations, thereby increasing the strength of the Church, corresponding to its needs. These candidates should be suitably and carefully chosen. In ordinary preaching, the life of the evangelical counsels and the religious state should be treated more frequently. Parents, too, should nurture and protect religious vocations in their children by instilling Christian virtue in their hearts.

--"Perfectae Caritatis"[/quote]
Notice that it states "these candidates [for religious life] should be suitably and carefully chosen." There is nothing here justifying new age nuns and the other nonsense that took place after the Council. The use of the habit was also affirmed as "an outward mark of consecration to God." The only thing the Council stated was that the habit "must meet the requirements of health and be suited to the circumstances of time and place and to the needs of the ministry involved." This does not remotely suggest that the habit should be abandoned.

If the documents of the Council had been truly received in Seminaries and religious orders, then we would have had a great renewal. The Church is committed to the Council, so we will have that renewal in time. We are already seeing it happen with many Seminaries and religious communities that are thoroughly orthodox.

[Apotheoun]

I am no fan of Vatican II, but it is not responsible for the bizarre practices of the 1960s and 70s. The collapse of Western culture into hedonism is responsible for most of societies -- and the Church's -- woes.

[adt6247]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1371998' date='Aug 27 2007, 10:16 PM']I am no fan of Vatican II, but it is not responsible for the bizarre practices of the 1960s and 70s. The collapse of Western culture into hedonism is responsible for most of societies -- and the Church's -- woes.[/quote]
Not to mention that the seeds were planted earlier. The homosexual infestation in the seminary started decades earlier, particularly in the US.

I think if Vatican II happened either 20 years earlier, or 20 years later, things would have been better. It coincided with a lot of carp going on in the world at the time.

[MichaelFilo]

In regards to Apotheoun; priests leaving their jobs for marriage, the drop in vocations, etc. are not limited to the West, obviously though it is much more limited in the Eastern Church's jurisdictions where councils of this nature hardly take much effect; however it is felt in all the places the Roman Rite has spread its hands too, from South America (which cannot properly called an extension of Western Culture,) the Philippines (which is also suffering from declining vocations regardless of their exporting of priests to the States,) and other places where the Roman Rite holds precedence, and the Eastern Churches surely have not been left out of feeling the repercussions. I simply state the changes in the second Vatican Council could not be seen as disconnected from the changes and instead blame Western Culture, even in places where it has affected very little in culture because poverty is so rampant as to not be able to support Western cultural styles.

I'm not sure you can use Nicea as an example, it is very limited in that there was much politics in bringing back Arianism and dispersing it in the first place (Constantine I and Constantine II.) However, it was effectivly eliminated soon after the Council which was at 325 and this peace kept until 337 when Constatine the second put in the former Arian exiles into the positions of Bishops in the East. I would say the question was quite settled without the second Constantine trying to reinstate the heresy to bolster his power.