Where would the Catholic Church be today if there had been no Vatican II?

[hedgehog]

I know some will criticize me for posting here instead of the Catholic and Orthodox forum, but I wanted as many people to see this as possible.

For years, I've heard all kinds of laments about the chaos that followed Vatican II; complaints ranging from criticism over (supposedly) vapid hymns and lame translations of the Mass to claims that if it were not for Vatican II, we'd have many more priests and sisters, more respect for the clergy, more respect for Church teachings, packed churches every Sunday, etc.

What I have never seen is any discussion of where the Church would be today if we had continued down the path we were headed on before Vatican II.

I think this Web site is a sobering warning of where we might have ended up today:

http://www.sspx.org


All I can say is, God Bless John XXIII!

[Debi]

1. JPII gave me the strength to question what is going on with the Church now

He had a vision of what the Church could be to all people and Ben. XVI is destroying it.

[YOY]

2. I'm just waiting for Vatican III before going anywhere near the Church again.

Not holding my breath on it though...I'll live.

[acmavm]

3. I think that the Church would still be going strong, but not AS

strong. But now they want to undo everything that came our of Vatican II. The hardliners are back and they're pissed because they've lost so much of their power. The controlled us all by fear. And I mean fear of EVERYTHING!

When I was 12 my Mom, who didn't want to discuss sex with me, bought me a book written by a Jesuit priest. So help me, I'm still psychologically scarred. These crazies view sex and anything sexual as being way worse than murder even.

It took a book by Dr. David Ruben, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Sex (but were Afraid to Ask) to straighten me out again.

[hedgehog]

7. Dig around in the site a little bit. I found this gem, a condemnation of

the rhythm method, aka Natural Family Planning aka Catholic Birth Control:

Those couples who accept the obligation of having children are certainly validly married, even if they do not always fulfill this obligation, e.g., by limiting the number of their children. This is the case of those selfish couples, without faith in Divine Providence, who are determined to limit the size of their family for reasons of convenience or simply because they prefer it that way. They commit a grave sin, even if it is by NFP that they presume to do this. They are truly married, but they will never be able to communicate to their children generosity, the spirit of sacrifice, the love of the Cross, of souls and the Church.

http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__morality.htm#naturalfamilyplanning


I read several of the commentaries on this site, looked over "Bishop" Williamson's site and considered converastions I've had with some LEgionairres of Christ. Believe me, if it had not been for the intervention of John XXIII, we were all on a trip to Crazy Town.*



* Non-believers, please restrain yourself from commenting that all believers are on a trip to Crazy Town. Self restraint this one time will do you good.

* I use this term having heard it on the Daily Show and intend no denigration of people actually suffering mental illness as opposed to willful ignorance.

[acmavm]

16. You know what, I agree absolutely. In fact, Vatican II was a finger in the

eye of all these old conservative fools that are trying to make a comeback with their fire and brimstone methods. Crazy Town, that's a good term for it. We sure as hell let them put guilt trips on us for shit that doesn't even matter. From the time we were old enough to listen to our parents or whomever. And if you went to Catholic grade school you had enough self-hatred and guilt in you that you didn't know whether to shit or go blind.

Sheesh!

[Tracer]

4. "supposedly vapid hymns"?

Try "excruciatingly vapid hymns."

Or, if you need a laugh, go to:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050204010724/http://www.mgilleland.com/music/moratorium.htm

[hedgehog]

6. Hey, I was there when "Raindrops on my window" was being sung!

Some of the English language hymns in the 70's were incredibly bad! Still, things have gotten a lot better in some places, especially when we got smart and started stealing the best from the (ahem) Protestants! I think a lot of the complaints about music in Roman Catholic churches is knee jerk and out-of-date. I am also aware that this debate goes on among our separated brethren. My husband's home congregation received the new hymnal with all the hymns vetted by the denominations select committee of theologians and music scholars. The congregation then went out and printed an auxiliary hymnal of all the old favorites the committee had discarded!

My theory is that for every hymn out there, you will find 1 person who considers it the fest ever written, one who never wants to hear it again and 98 people who could take it or leave it.


edited to add this:

http://world.std.com/~jegan/8309.html


By the way, according to the fine members of the Pius X Society:
"It is not permissible to perform Gospel music, either on TV or in public. For this kind of music is an expression of the false protestant religion, and is consequently an active participation in the propagation of a false religion. It is consequently not permissible to perform Gospel music in a nursing home."

[anonymous171]

5. Yep. The conservatives are revamping their assault on Vatican II.

I really thought that they had given up, but it appears that they were just biding their time.

[juno jones]

8. I guess they will lose the thinkers now rather than than earlier

Perhaps it was inevitable.

I find it amazing that any critism of the catholic church gets immediately decried here as being anti-catholic. I doubt this is the case. I think most people are reacting to the retrograde movement of the church in the last decade or so. I know several previously catholic families and individuals who have left the church post-Bennie and have not had their children baptized, been wed, etc in the church (even they call him the Nazi pope).

On my own spiritual path I have encountered many practicing catholics who have been great teachers and loving people. Most pagans I have met are ex-catholics (all those saints makes it easier, methinks). All of us share a respect for the liberation theology of Vatican 2.

What we don't respect is the (now blatant) right-wing authotarianism of the current church administration.

[hedgehog]

9. I find it hard to have a rational discussion on the subject of Church because

all too often any thoughtful posts get swamped by those who think the Church can do no wrong and those who think the Church can do no right!

[juno jones]

11. I agree.

On edit: It could be a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. If somebody doesn't have contact with catholics, all they are going to see is the monolithic church as represented by Ben. the ex-nazi and grand inquisitor.

I've seen my catholic friends in the last few years go thru some major soul-searching. The ones who decided they would not have their children baptised were in tears.

[CatholicEdHead]

23. It happens in many more areas than just DU

I was banned from the Catholic Answers board for being too moderate, yet they have a entire forum for SSPXers. It is ok to be ultra-right but not left at all, the mere mention of accepting homosexuality much less pushing for gay marriage freaks so many people out.

The mindset is to be Catholic you have to be all or nothing. You agree 100% without question or you are something lesser. :puke: :crazy:

What we see now is a retrenching of the loss of the "perfect society" as hard core seminarians are taught. The Church can do no wrong, so the sex scandal loss of prestige is blamed on the people, not the clergy. They need money to keep going, so the best ones they want are those who pay and do not ask questions, hence the rise of the ultra-right again. It has gotten so bad the interim Bishop at St Louis is trying to raid (officially get more control over) the Catholic Charities fund.

Things will swing back but it might take a generation or two and then we can move forward with Vatican III, married priests, women's ordination, and a Church of the world, not of an locked away building with people cowering in fear of the outside world.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. I suspect there would have been major schisms

I'm not Catholic, and not old enough to know what things were like before Vatican II, but my impression is that without it, any liberal would have had to leave the church. Vatican II purged some anti-semitism from the church (which that Society for St. Pius X has retained).And that wouldn't have just been liberals in western democracies needing to leave - I think the tenor of Vatican II let the developing world know that the Catholic church was getting rid of the colonialist/missionary mindset too.

[hedgehog]

15. There is a saying that the Church is not a democracy, but the Church would have

had to make some response to external changes such as woman's liberation. Everyone blames Vatican II for the fact that so many women left the convent and so few enter these days, but did anyone notice that before and after, say 1970, opportunities for women expanded exponentially? I went to a college prep girl's high school in that era. Although we did have a career day, the guidance counselor only knew about colleges offering nursing or teaching degrees.


Edit: Yes, Vatican II was opened in 1959 and Women's Lib is associated with the 70's and 80's, but social change doesn't spring forth from nothing.

[Cleita]

12. I think that the people who object to Vatican II are the same

ones who voted for Prop 8 in California, and condone harassing family planning clinics.

[zagging]

13. Not much difference

They'd still be wearing dresses and raping little boys, but in Latin.

[mitchum]

20. LMAO!!!

nicely done :)

[ferrous wheel]

14. In the 15th century instead of the 18th

;-)

[hedgehog]

17. Aaaaaaand we have a winner!

:)

[mitchum]

18. Right back in the Middle Ages...where it is now

[Matilda]

19. There's definitely some back-tracking going on,

starting with JPII but continued at a greater pace under Pope Benedict.

Have you noticed that hardliners, such as Josemaria Escrivar (Opus Dei) and Mother Teresa have had
their canonisations fast-tracked, while John XXIII is on the back-burner?

I loved old Pope John - to me he was everything a true Christian should be - warm and loving, with
a concern for the welfare of all humanity, rather than with the minutiae of Catholic doctrine.

Before he came along, the Pope was a remote figure who seldom left the Vatican - I think there was
a feeling that he'd somehow be sullied by contact with ordinary people. Then came Pope John, who
loved nothing better than to meet and talk with all sorts of people. I remember reading in a
biography on him, that the Vatican officials were scandalised when he proposed walking in the
Vatican gardens every afternoon. "But Your Holiness, people might see you!" said the officials.
"Don't worry," said John, "I won't do anything to shock them".

God rest him; when are we going to get another like him?

[Ichingcarpenter]

21. Where would the Church be if it had included the Gnostics in Catholicism?

Probably better form of religion that included females
and more progressive thought, but that would have eroded
the Holy Roman Empire's rulership

[hedgehog]

22. I think there are a lot of romantic notions about the Gnostics that just

don't hold water. From what I can make out, they ignored the Love thy neighbor part and were too involved in gaining secret knowledge of God. In fact, I think a lot of the right wing stuff smacks of Gnosticism at least as far as the attitude of an inner circle with access to the TRUTH goes. Hence, the emphasis on the REAL PRESENCE and WORSHIP OF THE EUCHARIST over all else; not to mention worship in a dead language!.