The Catholic Message Board

A guy on the internet recently asked this question with the same incredulity I experience. What do you guys think could be the best response?

The response is: They're not faithful Catholics. Not diplomatic, but then I would never ever qualify as a diplomat.

The very phrasing of the question is unfair and loaded.

Because it's (a) dated, (b) boring, and (c) ambiguous

Why do people like to dredge things like this up in such a loaded way? much?

peregrinator wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 10:29 am Because it's (a) dated, (b) boring, and (c) ambiguous

You could say that about the entire catalogue of Church utterances though. I'd like to know deep into the question what makes VII so repellent to somebody that can say they wish the Council never happened. That's the curiosity of the person who I saw posing the question.

Stella wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 4:28 pm

peregrinator wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 10:29 am Because it's (a) dated, (b) boring, and (c) ambiguous

You could say that about the entire catalogue of Church utterances though.

No you can't. The documents of Vatican II have aged badly, they have an almost childish naivete about the future the attitude of most of the documents is "we are on the precipice of a new utopia, everyday and in every way everything is going to get better and better" these naively optimistic projections not only did not pan out, but everything went in the exact OPPOSITE direction, vocations plummeted, millions of priests and nuns abruptly quit, Mass attendance dropped dramatically, and now in formerly Catholic countries such as France, Ireland and Italy there are more active Muslims than Christians, and the majority of the non-Muslim population tell pollsters that they are atheists. If this is a new utopia, I would have to see what a new dark age would look like.

Doom wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 9:44 pm

Stella wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 4:28 pm

peregrinator wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 10:29 am Because it's (a) dated, (b) boring, and (c) ambiguous

You could say that about the entire catalogue of Church utterances though.

No you can't. The documents of Vatican II have aged badly, they have an almost childish naivete about the future the attitude of most of the documents is "we are on the precipice of a new utopia, everyday and in every way everything is going to get better and better" these naively optimistic projections not only did not pan out, but everything went in the exact OPPOSITE direction, vocations plummeted, millions of priests and nuns abruptly quit, Mass attendance dropped dramatically, and now in formerly Catholic countries such as France, Ireland and Italy there are more active Muslims than Christians, and the majority of the non-Muslim population tell pollsters that they are atheists. If this is a new utopia, I would have to see what a new dark age would look like.

I think you are being a bit premature, Doom. Pope Francis cited Church historians saying it takes a century to implement a Council.
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2 ... r%20second.

The same happened after Trent. The zealous implementation resulted in some disastrous even shameful events. Vocations are increasing in the West and still very impressive in the mission countries. There's a lot of cause for hope, Doom. I think you need a name change. Maybe 'Dream'? That sounds better.

Stella wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 11:15 pm I think you are being a bit premature, Doom. Pope Francis cited Church historians saying it takes a century to implement a Council.

If 60 years of implementation has produced few or no good fruits, then why do more of the same for another 40 years?

Vocations are increasing in the West

Are they really? I'm not so sure of that.

peregrinator wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2024 5:53 am

Stella wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 11:15 pm I think you are being a bit premature, Doom. Pope Francis cited Church historians saying it takes a century to implement a Council.

If 60 years of implementation has produced few or no good fruits, then why do more of the same for another 40 years?

See, this is what I did not say, that Vatican II was the cause of all the problems in the Church are the result of Vatican II and that if not for the Council everything would be fine. I find that claim unlikely because it naively assumes that before 1962, everything was hunky dory, but that is not the case. Certainly, Pius XII didn't think everything was going well, historians of his pontificate divide it into two stages 1939-1949 where he was generally positive and optimistic, and 1950-1958 where he was dark and pessimistic and seemed to believe the sky was falling.

If you look at his pontificate post-1950, it is marked by an uncharacteristic suspiciousness and the tendency to issue mass condemnations of everything that seemed slightly novel. He morphed from the consummate diplomat into the prophet condemning the modern world, he turned into Pius IX at the peak of his intransigence. He abruptly turned from being a reformer and modernizer into being an antireformist. It is a fair question to ask why this happened, and the most likely explanation is that he could see that the trends for the future of the Church were very bad, that the Church was in the midst of a deep crisis of faith, and that if he didn't do something the future would be very bleak indeed. In the issue of Life magazine that was published on Pius XII after his death in Oct 1958, the article paints the Pope as depressed and despondent dubbing himself "The Last Pope", and modern biographers agree that that portrait of the Pope at the end of his life was more or less accurate.

It is true that Vatican II didn't fix those problems, but it also didn't cause them.

I never said Vatican II caused anything. What it didn't do was address the problems that were already present (if somewhat hidden) and which have only gotten worse in the past six decades. So why are we still trying to implement the thing that doesn't work? If we have a bandage that falls apart when it touches a wound, do we keep applying the bandage over and over?

I don't have a problem with the council.

I have a problem with the reformulation of ALL of the sacraments and affected rites.

For example, Baptism in the old rite had a minor exorcism which helped children have less demonic obsession or oppression.
The new rite - that's gone. Baptism still valid, but that benefit gone.

Blessings in the old rite had minor exorcisms which helped make the water or other object be useful against demons.
The new rite, that's gone. They're still blessings, but that benefit is gone.

The baptismal exorcism is still there, in admittedly more cloaked form, but with an option to use a more explicit one if the situation suggests a need.

I usually bless Holy Water with the old rite.