The fall of the Church after Vatican II

In my American Catholic History class, we are having a speaker come in next week to talk about how Vatican II changed Catholicism in America.

My teacher told us to think of questions to ask the speaker. I think the Church has suffered much since Vatican II and want to present facts and ask him questions about this.

I have found this so far olrl.org/misc/jones_stats.shtml

What else can I do?

Be open to the speaker and your teacher. Don’t come in with your own agenda. Who knows, you might learn something.

I reccomend reading the documents first. Then maybe you will see that the Council itself was a good thing.

This sounds like it could get ‘interesting’. The speaker might come in there and talk about all the ‘wonderful’ doctrinal ‘changes’ that have occurred, at which point you may want to remind said speaker that Vatical II didn’t implement any doctrinal changes, and that any “changes” are either due to error and abuse by those in power, or are changes in disciplines and not doctrines. One particular subject that could come up is the Church’s supposed change in stance in regard to the Jews. This is a big one these days, and you ought to be ready to counter that there has been no change in belief about culpability (of Jews, and of us personally).

I can also see this taking a turn toward how great it is that the Catholic Church is more like the rest of the world now…Yeah, real great…just look at the figures you found.

You might want to just quote one stat: from Gallup (and N.D.) about Mass attendance, and just mention the serious decline in vocations. Don’t inundate the person with a million statistics about a million different things. Just ask the person how this could possibly be a good thing if on the one hand the Church is trying to compromise with the world, and at the same time loses most of its membership.

I don’t know if this speaker will put a positive spin on this subject, but there is nothing directly positive that I can see that came out of VII. The only positive things I see are now the ‘reform of the reform’ which is starting to happen. If only it were unnecessary!

The underlying theme of the Council was Diginity of the Human Person. And it was a bad thing?

How can a council that was unnecessary be a ‘good thing’? Even without any hindsight whatsoever, a council in this manner is a terrible idea. Have you ever heard the expression “tempting God”?

Did we not understand ‘dignity of the human person’ before this council? Did they pronounce a new dogma?

A pope can write an encyclical on the dignity of the human person without calling a bazillion bishops from all over the world (not to mention a bunch of protestants to help form the new rites of worship) in order to say something on the subject. This is just ridiculous.

You’re making the claim that VII was a good thing. I have no idea what you’re talking about, and in a couple sentances could you just say why you think this?

I think VII was a bad idea because it was, first of all unnecessary, second of all, it totally obliterated the faith of hundreds of millions (think of all the suffering Christ did on Good Friday for all these souls that were damned anyway because of the travesty that was “VII”). That’s my take. It didn’t clarify anything, it simply muddled all dogmas that previously had been clear to the faithful. 40 years later people still have no idea what the Church teaches on certain subjects…

I have never seen a clearer concept of begging the question than this.

I think that some of what has happened might have happened anyway…People are a lot less holy and church minded than they used to be

They are involved in things like Wicca because they really know nothing about Christianity in general

I am not sure it is fair to put all of the blame on Vatican II…I suspect it did have an impact, and it might have also brought other people home to Rome

WE seem to have a lot more conversions by ex protestant pastors then I can ever remember

WE also must remember the Holy Spirit is still at work, that has never changed, and I am not thrilled with a lot of things that has happened

I also recall Pope Paul saying what would happen to the world once the pill became widely used…He said women would become sex objects and that abortions would also be permitted

Society has changed because of many factors and they must all be looked at properly including bearing children out of wedlock and divorce

First, I defer to the wisdom of Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI. Second, clarifying that prejudice of any kind is intolerble, and that the crimes inflicted on Jews for the past 2000 years in unconciable, especially considering that Christianity is a sect that grew out of Judaism. There are still some Traditionalists who cling to anti-Semitism. We must also consider that modern Protestants are not heretics, but schismatics. One must be exposed to the fullness of truth before they can reject it, true? One can hardly blame VII for the decline in vocations. After, all there has been a decline in the Protestant Clergy as well. Or is VII to blame for that too? Kepp in mind that every council has a period of confusion among the laity that follows, sometimes lasting more than 50 years. It has been 40 since it ended. To say that the Church “fell” as a result of VII is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty. I could write more, but I don’t have the time to reproduce my senior paper.

Ask your teacher if he believes VII was pastoral? Ask him what happened to the Latin Language that dissappeared which the council said it should be retained? Ask why the Communion rails were removed from parishes and why altars were smashed? Ask him why the creator of the O.F. Annibale Bugnini was held high in esteem during the council was dismissed and banished to be the Arch Bishop of Iran by Pope Paul VI?

No, I wouldn’t do any of that. It is considered absolutely terrible to form to “go on the attack” against a speaker. It is much more proper to wait until the discussion that follows to do something like that. Doubtless, the speaker prepared for a presentation, not a debate, and you’d embarrass him by doing that.

If the teacher mentioned prepare questions why not. I agree do it during the discussion.

I wouldn’t refer to the actions of a pope as a litmus test for wisdom. Not everything a pope does is wise. Moreover, much has already been written about John XXIII and his desire to open a council, years before he did, and how his advisors advised against it…for many of the reasons that followed (wholesale liberalism etc). Sometimes wisdom is saying “ya know what? I don’t know what to, so maybe I should wait before doing anything!”

Second, clarifying that prejudice of any kind is intolerble, and that the crimes inflicted on Jews for the past 2000 years in unconciable, especially considering that Christianity is a sect that grew out of Judaism.

I never said anything is wrong with this clarification, but once again, it doesn’t take a whole new church council to restate the same old Catholic teaching on one or two subjects, especially when no new dogma is pronounced…Also keep in mind that dogmas have been pronounced without the need to call a multi-year council. The two most recent dogmas come to mind (1854, 1950).

There are still some Traditionalists who cling to anti-Semitism.

Ya know, I guess this must be true since I hear it all the time. But I doubt it’s any more true among trads than it is among any other group of non-Jewish people. I’ve attended parishes exclusively at an FSSP, an SSPX, or an independent chapel over the last 4 years depending on where I was living, and I have never once at any of these three locations known somebody to be an anti-semite. I always go to church functions and never hear anything but love from trads regarding Jews (when the issue comes up, which is rare). I regularly invite people over and even in the privacy of my home, and among close friends, I have never heard a disparaging word. Perhaps you’re just repeating what others have said about us “evil, anti-semitic trads”.

Perhaps I should mention that the presenter is the chair of the theology department. He is a good man, a wonderful professor, and a personal friend of mine. He is a Byzantine Catholic and teaches with faithfulness to the Church and Her teachings. He has said before that he admires my traditional beliefs and my dedication to them. I do not wish to attack him.

False. How are Protestant beliefs NOT heretical? They indeed are exposed to the Church and choose to reject it. I pray every day that they may return to the bosom of Holy Church.

There is a difference in a small decline of clergy and a decrease of seminarians of over 90 percent since Vatican II.

You re-worded what was said. The poster did not say the beliefs were not heretical. He said they were not true heretics. The two statements are not the same.

You may not have time to write more, but I certainly wish you would. I find you comments insightful and much closer to the truth than the title of this thread suggests. The Church hasn’t fallen since Vatican II and, in fact, is probably more influential in the world today than it has been since the Spanish Armada sank beneath the waves of the English Channel. This is in no small part due to Vatican II and the extraordinary popes the Church has had since.

I apologize, let me clarify myself: Protestants that have been validly Baptized and hold heretical views, knowing that these views conflict with an article of faith clearly defined by the Catholic Church, are heretics. They are also schismatics.

However, this is not the topic of the thread, so this is all I will comment on this. If you wish to start another thread to discuss this you are welcome to. If you do that, please send me the thread link by a PM.

Have you read the post conciliar documents of VC2? Like most Catholics I bet you have not – nor will you ever. Step-up to the plate and invest the time and effort to read them.

Compiling a hit list is a waste of life – and a waste of your class’ time.

At the very least I would like you to actually think about what sorta shape you believe the Church would be in today in the USA if VC2 had never taken place. If you think everything would be peaches-n-cream, heck if you think things would be necessarily better then more than ever you need to read the actual council documents.

Do you have any close friends or family members that are Protestants? I do. In fact i used to be a Fundamentalist Evangelical Protestant myself. ANd I can tell you that they are NOT exposed to the teachings of the Church. They are exposed to misrepresentations of the Church. They are taought that we hold Mary at the same level as Jesus. They are taught that we believe that the one time sacrifice was insufficent, so we must “re-sacrifice” Christ in the Eucharist. Some of the more extreme gorups say we are a Pagan cult that participates in sun worship. What they reject, is a gross misrepresentation of Holy Mother Church. Again, I urge that you actually READ the sixteen documents that came out of the council. Another error is your claim that Pope john XXIII wanted to call a coucil for YEARS. Utter hogwash. He announced the council within 6 months of becoming Pope, and he was not known as a Theologian before elected pope, and his announcement took the Curia by surprise.

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.