How do you think the Church would be different today?
(Please, no uncharitable comments)
How do you think the Church would be different today?
Who can say. Pretending reality isn’t so will just lead to spiritual desolation.
Another question we might speculate on is–what would the Church be like if everyone did what the Council told them they must do. This is still a possible scenario we can work out. I dare say we would have converted much more of the world by now.
i think it would have been like it was before the changes. by the way, i’ll add 1 more canonization i’d like to see :
Pope Leo XIII
Honestly, if we look at the biggest problems in the Church today, we see strict deviations from what Vatican II said. We see Divine Revelation misrepresented counter to Dei Verbum, we see apathy instead of dynamic evangelization, we see a laity that hides their faith from the modern world, we poor catechesis, we see poor use of social communications to advance Catholic truth, we see poor religious education, we see poorly formed priests, we see liturgical abuses, etc., etc. All of these things are a result of disobedience to the Council as it gives specific commands to the contrary of all the problems that are asserted nowadays.
Probably not–the same men running the Church now would be governing her. The same problems and cultural revolutions in the world still would have happened. False philosophies would still be on the rise as they were for the centuries before the Council. Liturgical reform would have still be on the minds of the bishop’s and popes. Modern life and sciences would still have forced God out of the public sphere. TV would still bombard the faithful.
by the way, i’ll add 1 more canonization i’d like to see :
Pope Leo XIII
Definitely–the light in the Heavens.
Four thing happened that changed the Church a great deal here in America in the 60’s.
Vatican II. You wish to consider what would happen if that was out of the picture.
Vietnam: This taught a generation of American to have no trust in Aurthority (the Church, the Bishops and Priests).
The end of the Catholic Ghetto: Catholics were finally accepted equally by protestants. THAT IS our religion became a personal thing rather than a unifying thing, it did not interfere when talking to our “betters”. eg it was Pres JFK who said he could not see a situation where being president would conflict with his being a Catholic. Politicians today still do not see that being a politician SHOULD conflict with some of the compromises that are asked of you.
Women’s Movement: to the detriment of women throughout the world.
You can see the great influences in the 60’s had far reaching effects on all of society and the church. So even if we remove V II, it is very difficult to say where the Church would have gone.
And I would add to your list the Civil Rights movement, without which the women’s movement may never have happened.
I agree with Genesis that the world was changing whether Vatican II happened or not. I personally see Vatican II as the Holy Spirit’s anticipation of that changing world and the creation of a Church capable of dealing with those dynamic changes. I cannot imagine a way in the world the Church could have remained in its 1950’s state through the changes the world experienced.
Vatican II actually limited the damage that our society was causing our Church if anything. Don’t make yourself bigger than the Church. We can’t pick and choose what councils we don’t want to accept. Remember, to accept Vatican II is to accept all the other councils before that. It’s that simple. If you think Vatican II was a mistake, then you agree w/ Mel Gibson.
Me too. I’m still suprised that a cause for his and Benedict XV’s canonizations have not even been begun yet.
I guess it’ll be the same as before the sexual revolution of the 1960’s: Pleasantville.
Laudater Jesus Christus
Instaurare omnia in Christo
Interesting. I’m afraid Vatican II could become another Lateran Council V.
Count me in on this too.
I believe the opposite. I believe the defenses and model that the Church presented prior to the Council would have limited the damage the 60’s limited on Society.
The fact that the Church “changed” at least in its policies from what many thought was previously unchangeable reinforced the belief that nothing was solid.
Malcolm Muggeridge said that “Just as the world was ready to surrender to the Church, the Church surrendered to the world” (paraphrase)
Had Vatican II not happened, there would be no “Spirit of Vatican II”.
The motivations and essential ideas of John XXIII were noble but the timing and his general policy was wrong.
Add to that his refusal to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Our Lady. (He thought it would be imprudent because he wanted Russian Orthodox at the Council) And it’s no wonder that the council has really never lived up to its promise.
The Holy Ghost doesn’t promise good fruit to a Council, especially if the Council doesn’t promulgate anything of real value to the Church. A strong clear condemnation of Communism, a more prominent clarification on our Lady’s privileges and a clear call for conversion to the Catholic Church from the separated sects and Churches might have produced much better fruit.
Vatican II was too accomodating to political ideologies and consequently produced confusion in its very sloppy texts.
Fatima is private prophecy and is irrelevant to the discussion.
I think that we would have more Theological writings that actually make sense were it not for Vatican II.
It is the Church of Christ and the Holy Ghost was present, but whether or not anyone was actually listening, I haven’t the slightest clue, but I’m sure only a minority were being true to the Catholic Faith and attentive. Perhaps the rest had a Vatican II golf tournament they were preoccupied thinking about?
Why are the documents of Vatican two so ambigious and “wishy washy”.
And what about that “Theology of the Body”…I tried to read it…it was boring and quite painful. I’m sure it has helped a lot of people, but when it comes to topics of love, I’ll stick to something else when learning what goes on between man and woman…
Has anyone ever read Pope Leo XIII’s “Letter to Newlyweds”?
I read only one chapter which discussed fidelity and I thought it to be far more beautiful to read.
Actually, all of the older writings are better than new…maybe it’s just that the modern society really has lost all sense of romance and the sacred? Why is it I’m only 28 and hate modern thought?
Why oh why can’t people just get straight to the point in something that important.
Oh, I don’t know, perhaps it is a good thing…that way the council was left “open” just enough that even though the devil messed everything up and confused the outcome, we traditionalists could still have a scapegoat, and a reason to call for true reform ushering back the Traditional Latin Mass again…
God Willing, the Traditional Latin Mass will take over the world!!!
Fatima is a private revelation. (not a prophecy) and I’m sorry but, it’s not for you to determine what is and is not relevant to the discussion.
John XXIII was the Pope that read the secret and decided not to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart.
John XXIII was the Pope that called the Council.
Pope John’s wishes for the Council came into direct conflict with the wishes of Our Lady.
There is no reason why Our Lord would give good fruit to a Council called by someone that decided they knew better than the Queen of Heaven.
What about the promise that “that which you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven.” No one is obliged to believe a private revelation, Our Lady knows that and so does Our Lord who decreed it. Likewise, Our Lord gave the authority to govern the Church on earth to Peter alone and His successors.
Notice in all private recelations, Mary or Jesus or whoever is appearing always tells the seer to obey their superior, even if the superior rejects the revelation as authentic or chooses not to follow its directives. This is because the superior’s authority is founded on public revelation, something we all are bound to, while the directives in private revelations are not binding on the consciences of the Church.
If anything, the lack of fruit is from our own sins as are any chasitsements the Church receives, not the decision of one man to not follow a private revelation.
I kinda see the reasoning…here…
Perhaps this is better as another thread, but do you think that the council was called out of fear?
Somewhat like in the way Moses acted and why he wasn’t allowed to enter the Primised Land?
Pope John XIII and Moses were both good leaders and men, and not to put a judgement on their character, but perhaps they just made some bad choices out of human weakness?
Who makes you bigger than the pope?
However, it also shows that people who were supposedly well catechized via the Baltimore Catechism had the equivalent of a teenager’s knowledge of the Church - that is, they were well catechized about doctrine, but were given the impression that discipline, rubrics, etc were unchangeable too.
He may be quick with a quip, but I find it inaccurate; individuals within the Church may have surrendered, but I disagree that the Church has surrendered.
the single largest cause of dissent within the Church is not and has not been Vatican 2; it has been the Pill; and that had nothing to do with Vatican 2. It would obvioulsy not be called “Spirit of Vatican 2”; but the dissent has spilled out of theologians; and I posit that the start of the dissent wasn’t V2 but the Pill; theologians would not have stopped thinking, and twisting things around, and dissenting just because there was no Council. The Council did not spring up out of nowhere; most of what was discussed and decided upon there had already been brewing for decades before. Not having a Council would not have stopped it from continuing to brew.
And that has nothing to do with the topic.
None of this had anything whatsoever to do withwhat the Council was about; the Council was about issues within the Church, not within world politics. Further, the Church has never been hesitant since Communism showed up, to speak its part about the elgitimacy of that form of governement.
I don’t recall seeing either the Republicans or the Democrats there. Vtican 2 was the watershed point of whether the Chjurch was going to continue in isolation for the rest of the world, or was going to follow the Gospel command of bringing Christ to the world. The Church had been in shock for the last 4 centuries as more and more of its influence in the world, and in particular, in governments, continued to erode; in shock at the size of the theological rebellion against it starting with the Protestant revolt and the minimization of its influence almost everywhere. The failure to acknowledge that there was need for any change is simply a blindness to the fact that throughout the history of the Church there have been problems; the Church has repeatedly sought renewal through the Holy Spirit, and then gone on to find that it then has a new and different set of problems. One who pines for the good old days simply is blind to the fact that they were old days, and the good was soften focused on simply to ignore the fact that there were festering wounds in need of care.