A thought experiment: there were no Vatican ll reforms. What is the state of the Church in the Anglophone world in 2018?

No, I don’t believe that is true. They are practicing a form of liturgy that would still exist in the thought experiment proposed by the OP, but they are living in a world which is nonetheless deeply impacted by the reforms of VII. I don’t think there is anyway to draw comparisons between today’s traditional Catholics and how they are accepted and what Catholics would have been like in the total absence of VII.

No, again I don’t believe that is true for the reasons stated above.


No it wouldn’t

The Church doesn’t change to suit the world’s needs that is modernism in a nutshell

I’m sorry but I don’t think I understand your point. I never accused you of being unbalanced, just possibly naïve.

Did the Council of Trent need to respond to past abuses and the Reformation? Yes.

Vatican II was called for a reason. I trust the Holy Spirit to move the Church to such a momentous event as an ecumenical council.

Do you?


That is an entirely inaccurate statement. The Church is and always has been in a constant state of reformation. Surely you don’t think that the Pre-Trent Church and the Post-Trent Church were the same. Surely you don’t believe that the church was the same before 325 AD. and Nicaea, and after or with respect to any of the numerous ecumenical and regional councils that the Church has experienced over her history.

Our dogma does not change, but our doctrine develops and our disciplines are subject to relatively frequent change. That is the lived reality.


Yes I do or I wouldn’t be Catholic.

The Council of Trent was a different crisis but the world during the 60’s was becoming more secular and a Council is usually supposed to reject errors and reaffirm the Faith.

Vatican II was only a pastrol council

1 Like

You (and others) say that as if it means something significant. It doesn’t. Vatican II did not define any new dogma, so by definition it was not a “dogmatic” council but rather was a “pastoral” council. That is all that means. Nothing more. It nonetheless was a valid ecumenical council of the Church and its teachings are just as valid as the teachings of any other of the roughly 20 councils held over the past 1700 years of the church.


The English speaking world is pretty broad and diverse. I think the results could be very different in different parts of America, England, Australia, South Africa or India.

But I will say this, the V2 Council fathers saw problems, it wasn’t idyllic during traditional days from their view. They were fully invested in this, and that’s why they did what they did.


The Church has always guarded Her Liturgical Treasure but to throw the TLM away to very small isolated communities in dioceses and change Her disciplines which encourage modern man to Holiness.

Is sad to see.

Vatican II has very confusing documents that can be read in a heretical or traditional matter which is a valid criticism

Much of what you say here is probably true. But it doesn’t respond to the OP. This is not a discussion of what about Vatican II was done poorly. It is a thought experiment on what if Vatican II never happened. I won’t derail the thread and be dragged into that discussion. It is off topic. Start a new thread if you want to discuss the relative merits and flaws of Vatican II. In the meantime, it is a reality for purposes of this thread.


Perhaps a better thought experiment: there was no abuse of Vatican ll reforms. What is the state of the Church in the Anglophone world in 2018?



you get cookies :cookie::cookie:


That was my first thought, too.

So, if the world isn’t beating a path to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass in the world as it currently exists, then why would we expect that it would do so if that were the only expression of Catholic liturgy?

(Mind you, I’m not saying that people aren’t drawn to the EF, but merely that the claims like @Crusader30 makes (“new Golden Age”, “people running to Confession”, “converts everywhere”) seem unrealistic.)


Any Church document or teaching can be interpreted in a “heretical manner”. One need only read the 2000-year-history of the Church to see that this is true. :wink:


I don’t argue this, but it may be said that that is happening now as a result of Summorum Pontificorum, and that the conditions before SP made such path-beating impossible.

Just being Devil’s Advocate

The prince of lies really doesn’t need an advocate. :hushed:

What Deacon Jeff says is spot on.


Despite what people who hang on to tradition seem to think, God had to have a hand in VII or it wouldn’t of happened. @DeaconJeff was there any council who’s decisions were ever wholly reversed or derided?

If God wanted it to happen, whatever could of happened would of been far, far worse for Catholics.

Hypotheticals can be the cause of so much unnecessary dissension IMHO.

True. There was a desire for the EF among the faithful. And, the fact that this need is now being met is a good thing.

Where we start going off the rails is with the assertion that “EF only” is the answer, or is being flocked to by the world. That just doesn’t seem to be the case. :man_shrugging:


The Church has always guarded Her Liturgical Treasure but to throw the TLM away to very small isolated communities in dioceses and change Her disciplines which encourage modern man to Holiness.

I try my best to sympathize with this view, since I was raised well into post-Vatican II era. I have hardly any knowledge of Latin, etc. That being said, my appreciation of Latin liturgy is mostly a nod to our Catholic tradition and history.

But I am personally grateful for the liturgical reforms via Vatican II, insofar as the liturgy is not Latin-centered. I don’t see my spirituality benefiting from a language I have no knowledge of. I try to be sympathetic to others, but I am more appreciative of the diversity of liturgical expression. Jesus didn’t celebrate Mass in Latin, after all.

I don’t want Latin liturgy to go away, as I don’t want the Byzantine or Coptic or Maronite liturgies to go away either. But none of these should be exalted, as if Catholic orthodoxy depended on a certain liturgy, language, or expression of the faith.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.