Fri 24th Oct 2014 | Last updated: Thu 23rd Oct 2014 at 16:14pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

Debate: Should we be celebrating the Second Vatican Council?

Or should we be urgently seeking to fix the damage it did to the Church?

By on Thursday, 4 October 2012

Bishops gathered in St Peter's for the Second Vatican Council (Photo: CNS)

Bishops gathered in St Peter's for the Second Vatican Council (Photo: CNS)

Next week Pope Benedict XVI will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council with a Mass starting the Year of Faith. Joining him will be the surviving Fathers of the Council and the presidents of the world’s bishops’ conferences.

For many people, though, the Council is no cause for celebration. Daphne McLeod, of Catholic group Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice, sees it as a disaster leading to widespread ignorance about the faith, a decline in vocations and a rise in Catholics leaving the Church.

On the other hand, the Council cannot be blamed for everything bad that has happened to the Church since 1965. And it had, some Catholics would argue, concrete achievements, such as its declaration on religious freedom, and its opening the door to an undreamt of era of ecumenism. It also dramatically improved relations with Judaism.

So, should we be celebrating the Second Vatican Council? Or should we be seeking, instead, to fix the damage it did to the Church?

  • scary goat

     Very informative.  Thankyou.

  • scary goat

     Very informative again. Thanks.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Millions upon millions have voted with their feet. 

    All that joy …..!

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    The Council of Constance wasn’t. Vatican II is of the same type.

  • Charles

     Catholics are supposed to confess their mistakes not celebrate them. VII
    was a managerial disaster because it failed to address current church
    problems and actually made them worse while adding new problems as well.
    How is our church better with priests that don’t even wear cassocks or
    have churches that look like churches? How about celebrating the beauty
    of the Mass that existed for 1500 years rather than the Protestant like
    Novus Ordo meant to dilute Catholic ritual.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Never before in the Church’s history has a Council resulted in a swamp of heresies engulfing the Church. 

    Previous Councils dogmatically defined dogmas (the nature of Christ, etc.) or condemned the errors of the times (Trent and others). What followed was a period of strengthened unity, clarity of doctrine, reform of clergy and any other abuses. 

    THIS Council has shattered the unity of the Church, has led to manifold heresies, many uttered publicly by priests, Bishops and even Cardinals; seeks to eradicate the entire history of the Church prior to the Vatican II Khmer Rouge-like Year Zero; has enthroned protestantism in the heart of the Church’s theology, doctrine and liturgy; has shattered the Sacramental life of millions of Catholics and has led hundreds of millions in Europe, America and elsewhere to apostacise.

    These are the fruits of the demon, not of the Holy Ghost.

  • daclamat

    Paul VI dud`He tried to make gim a cardinal, which he modestly refused. Johm -Paul II insisted in 1983 and he gave in.. He made Congar a Cardiunal in 1997. Both in reparation for the years these mighty men were persecuted by the Curia..Hefty names to drop

  • F_maglin

    i believe the Second vatican council had some progression, to be more people centric, a church for the people. I saw many young people getting involve. Pope John Paul made the outreach to various groups and communities that the church never reached out to. That direction has empowered the world in many different ways. So celebrating the 2nd vatican council is necessary, as long as we don’t go back to solemn mass.

  • WG Grace

    One of the key players at Vatican II, which saw its victory, was Communism. Here is some of the evidence. There is a great deal more evidence than this, including, from 1991, the testimony of Soviet agents.

    In his great encyclical “On Atheistic Communism”, Pope
    Pius XI pointed out that “the most persistent enemies of the Church who
    from Moscow are directing the struggle against Christian civilization,
    themselves bear witness … that the Papacy … has called public attention to
    the perils of Communism more frequently and more effectively than any other
    public authority on earth.” (par.6)

    For years there have been rumours and reports of infiltration of the Church by
    Communists who would enter seminaries and be ordained priests for the purpose
    of destroying the Church from within. Here is the evidence:

    a)   Albert Vassert, a former member of
    the French Communist Party revealed in 1955 that Moscow had issued a 1936 order
    that carefully selected members of the Communist youth enter seminaries, and
    after training, receive ordination as priests. Some of these were to infiltrate
    religious orders, particularly the Dominicans. (In his essay “Satan at
    Work”, Deitrich Von Hildebrand reported that the French Dominicans’ ‘evangelization’
    had become so Marxist that in 1953, the Order barely escaped suppression by
    Pope Pius XII).

    b)   Manning Johnson, a former official of the
    Communist Party in America gave the following testimony in 1953 to the House
    Un-American Activities Committee: “Once the tactic of infiltration of religious
    organizations was set by the Kremlin … the Communists discovered that the
    destruction of religion could proceed much faster. The Communist leadership in
    the USA realized that the infiltration tactic in this country would have to
    adapt itself to American conditions and religious make-up peculiar to this
    country. In the earliest stages it was determined that with only small forces
    available to them, it would be necessary to concentrate Communist agents in the
    seminaries. The practical conclusion drawn by the leaders was that these
    institutions would make it possible for a small Communist minority to influence
    the ideology of future clergymen in the paths conducive to Communist
    purposes.”

    Further on in his testimony, he pointed out the grim fact that: “This policy of
    infiltrating seminaries was successful beyond even our greatest expectations. It
    is the axiom of Communist strategy that if a body has 1% Communist Party and 9%
    Party sympathizers, this 10% can effectively control the remaining 90% who act
    and think on an individual basis.”

    In other testimony he said that the goals of this infiltration were twofold:

    1.   make the Catholic Church no longer
    effective against Communism.

    2.   direct clerical thinking away from
    the spiritual and toward the temporal and political, so that the Gospel would
    be replaced by the preaching of the “social gospel”.

    c)   Bella Dodd spent most of her life in
    the Communist Party in America and was Attorney General designate had the Party
    won the White House. After her defection, she revealed that one of her jobs as
    a Communist agent was to encourage young radicals to enter Catholic seminaries.
    She said that before she had left the Party in the United States, she herself
    had encouraged almost 1,100 young radicals to infiltrate the seminaries and
    religious orders.

    d)   Brother Joseph Natale was present at
    one of Bella Dodd’s lectures in the early 1950′s. He relates, “I listened
    to that woman for four hours and she had my hair standing on end. Everything
    she said has been fulfilled to the letter. You would think she was the world’s
    greatest prophet, but she was no prophet. She was merely exposing the
    step-by-step battle plan of Communist subversion against the Catholic
    Church.”

    He explains: “She said that of all the world’s religions, the Catholic
    Church was the only one feared by the Communists, for it was its only effective
    opponent. Speaking as an ex-Communist, she said ‘In the 1930′s, we put eleven
    hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within.’
    The idea was for these men to be ordained, and then climb the ladder of
    influence and authority — to come to be monsignors and bishops. Back then she
    said ‘right now they are in the highest places, and they are working to bring
    about change in order that the Catholic Church will no longer be effective
    against Communism.’ She also said that the changes would be so drastic that
    ‘you will not recognize the Catholic Church’. (Note, this was about 10 to 12
    years before the Second Vatican Council.)

    “She explained that there would be a guilt-complex introduced into the
    Church … to label the ‘Church of the past’ as being oppressive,
    authoritarian, full of prejudices, arrogant in claiming to be the sole
    possessor of truth, and responsible for the divisions of religious bodies
    throughout the centuries. This would be necessary in order to shame the Church
    leaders into an ‘openness to the world’, and to a more flexible attitude toward
    all other religions and philosophies. The Communists would then exploit this openness
    in order to undermine the Church. Mrs. Dodd in effect was describing the
    ‘ecumenism’ that was to come. And now, Our Lady of Fatima’s grave warnings have
    come to pass. Russia has spread her errors, even into the very bosom of the
    Church.”

  • Jpfhays1953

    The “changes” we saw after Vatican II cannot be looked at in isolation from the enormous changes in society. Stop blaming everything on the Council. Secondly, we need to recall that there were gigantic abuses and neglect in the Church prior to V2.  Looking at all of this with such a narrow field of vision is dangerous.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    I agree, your narrow field of vision is indeed dangerous.

  • Alan

    Why 1750?  Why just Encyclicals?  For most people, the Church’s teaching is what the CCC says, aong with VII.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    The current Catechism came AFTER the Council Alan. And the Church is nearly 2,000 years old, it didn’t start in 1965. But I do agree that most Catholics today know nothing of the Church’s teaching prior to vatican II. That’s entirely deliberate. 

    The teaching of the Church on the subjects that Vatican II (Traditionalists contend) taught falsely on were made explicit in the Encyclicals of the 18th Century right up to Vatican II. To know where we are coming from, you will have to read and study them.I know that Religious Liberty is one area you are interested in, and you take the Modernist view of this. Trouble is, the Catholic definition of liberty never was that of the French and American Revolutions, which Vatican II adopted. The latter says that you can do what you want as long as it’s not against the law. We have free will, but correctly defined, it is the “liberty to choose what is right”. The freedom to choose what is false never was a Christian idea. Also, the choices we make have to be made with God’s Grace, otherwise our free will cannot operate to its full extent and we will choose what God does not wish for us or we will choose to believe untruth about Man’s existence. The Catholic definition of liberty is therefore “the ability to do or believe what you should do or believe”, not what you want to do or believe. No-one therefore has a “right” to choose error. 

    This is one of the crucial areas of Vatican II innovation. There are others.

    And remember: we are to flee from innovations in teaching and its propagators. 

  • Charles

     The feel good and vague nature of the VII documents were perfect ways to subversively avoid resistance because no one could easily criticize love and peace;  the problem is that love and peace were simply ways to promote an unguarded naiveté about the Marxist redefinition of the church as a community of people in solidarity with the poor. Do you really think Saints Peter and Paul were out there for social work?  The spirit of VII is really the spirit of Karl Marx in disguise. Let’s all work to exorcise that spirit from the church and society.

  • 2_Armpits_4_Sister_Sarah

    How many people have read De Lubac? How relevant are these intellectuals to the modern World? How do we use De Lubac to evangelise?

  • Patrickhowes

    Well your comment is very accurate.The Church was always concerned about the suffering,thus it was and still is the greatest  missionary presence in the world.But this was called “charity” just as St Paul referred to it.The problem was that at Vll,the Church veered into politics and cretaed its own policies rather than sticking to doctrine.Doctrine has a theological basis but policies are political in nature.The result of this was the beginning of “Liberation Theology”.This extended at its worst,to marxist leaning priests in South America to those awful concrete Churches in the suburbs of major cities like Milan,Madrid etcetera. The Church should be a little bit like monarchy,that is above politics and only intervene when moral boundaries are transgressed.Pous Xll criticised the treatment of the Jews and opened up convents and monasteries to escaping Jews yet the Holocaust Council refuse to accord him the recongnition he deserves.In Chile Cardinal Silva stood up to the barbaric tactics of Augusto Pinochet.Pinochet was absolutely right to rescue Chile from marxism but wrong to torture in a systematic and cruel way and hence the intervention of the Church.By the time that JPll managed to bring down communism and despite his attempts to bring dissident priests back in to line,the damage that had been done.I have never understood why so many Catholics perceive Jesus Christ as a hippy type marxist?.Where do they get that information from?.It was this spirit that pervaded the Church.Catholics especially in the wild sixties and seventies linked the Catholicism to the social and political changes of the time.Christain humanism became humanism and it has been a spiral downturn.Tradition was thrown in to the skips along with the altar rails and the beautiful statues and oil paintings of the Saints.We stopped being afaith that was founded in the East to becoming a novus post war eclectic mix of ” we are big enough to be diverse” type attitude.As the creed states “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” not two,three or four versions.The current Pope has helped to demonstrate much clearer thinking but really we need a new generation of orthodox priests who will have to literally war their ways through Parishes already too far gone to be brought back,

  • Robert

    “more people centric”to what purpose? 
    In this country we have closed our largest seminary, the others are half empty. Most female religious communities will extinct in 15 years by which time we will have less than half the clergy that we have now.
    On the continent where the Church has become the “more people centric” than in the UK, for want of clergy many diocese will cease to exist.

    So much as you say “has empowered the world in many different ways” but it hasn’t empowered the Church.

  • JabbaPapa

    OK — I’m mystified by this topic of discussion.

    I see it as being important to *accept* Vatican II (notwithstanding some perfectly legitimate and necessary debate about its more confusing aspects) — but to “celebrate” it ?

    I can understand “commemorating” Vatican II, but this notion of *celebration* strikes me as pertaining more to the so-called “spirit of the Council” than to anything that the Council documents attempted to teach, and that so many Catholics have turned their backs against (modernists, relativists, reformers, and liberals for the most part).

    If these modernists, relativists, reformers, and liberals are the ones who are going to be doing the “celebrating”, then forgive me if I don’t join the party…

    I’ll start celebrating just as soon as the hermeneutic of continuity will be visible at the grass-roots level of general Catholic parish life and ordinary catechesis worldwide.

  • Alan

    Suppose I were to read all those encyclicals, and were to agree with you that they are contradictory to some VII teachings.  I would (I suspect) draw the opposite conclusion from you, and would say that VII is correct and the earlier ones, insofar as they are contradictory, were wrong.  Now, you would call that “private judgement” on my part, but I could equally claim that it is “private judgement” on yours.  What makes your judgement intrinsically superior to mine?

  • JabbaPapa

    Pope John Paul II is the Pope who started the currently ongoing movement back towards the Catholic Tradition, and away from the extremely radical excesses and outright abuses of the “spirit of the Council”.

    Oh, and of course there’s nothing wrong with solemn Mass.

    The only *real* issue with the Old Mass, from about 15th century onwards that is, is that the typical Lay Catholics no longer understand the Latin. This affects the Eucharistic Sacrifice not a jot, but it *does* negatively affect the secondary teaching purpose of the Mass.

    Rumours persist that the Holy See, under the direction of the Pope, is working on establishing a Missal that would present the Novus Ordo in a manner that would actually be coherent with the Vatican II teachings, instead of refusing or abusing them.

    That is to say, a Missal with a great deal more Latin even in a vernacular rendering, including various forms of pastoral and liturgical practice from the Tradition of the Church, more insistence on the Gregorian, and so on and so forth — all of which is specifically required by Vatican II.

    Use of the vernacular was originally intended to be strictly reserved for the Readings and teachings and so on ; NOT for the Act of Eucharistic Sacrifice itself.

  • Mph

    I’m not sure we need a celebration as much as a honest, in-depth, critical look at the documents themselves. 

    Yes, the “spirit of Vatican II” stems from the documents themselves. But I don’t think that means they are worthless or damaging. Luther’s “spirit of Romans”, if you will, stems from Romans itself, but we still have Paul’s wonderful epistle in our scriptures. In the case of the “spirit of Vatican II”, it is the interpretation of the Council that is faulty, not (necessarily) the Council itself. This is not a deflection tactic, this is just how things are. 

    For instance, Sacrosanctum Concilium mandated liturgical reform. Fair enough; if those gathered at an ecumenical council of the Church thought we needed liturgical reform, then chances are that we did. However, the reform of the Mass that we got after the Council had and still does have problems and issues with it, the biggest in my opinion perhaps being the restructuring and rewriting of the offertory prayers. Yes, for we in the English-speaking world, the English translation has (finally!) been greatly improved, but to what extent should the vernacular be used in the Mass anyway? Why now do we have so many Eucharistic prayers? Why the explosion of prefaces? Then there are all the things that happened that have no root in the Council, like the near-total abandonment of the ad orientum position. And we’ve not even started on the liturgical reform of the other sacraments, or the breviary! (The disjoint between the 1961 Breviary and the post-conciliar Officium Divinum is particularly inorganic and problematic, in my opinion.)

    The reform of the liturgy that we got after the Council, though, was not the only possible one. Neither, I would say, was it the best or most helpful. And this gets to one of the major issues with the Council documents: they’re often too vague. Where they are quite specific (e.g. SC 22.3; GS 51), the overall vagueness contributes to a general ignorance of the content of the documents themselves. It creates an impression of a free-for-all, and, in hindsight, perhaps the 1960s were not the best time for the Church to promulgate a set of frequently vague, nebulous documents under the misunderstood title “pastoral”. 

    Yet we are where we are. We cannot just ignore the Council, or throw it in the trash, or file it away on the reference shelf along with (e.g.) Vienne and Lyon I, or pretend it never happened. Rather, we need to begin to reclaim it from those whose interpretation/”spirit” of it is not consistent with the tradition of the Church. That’s going to involve some hard debates, especially about the post-conciliar liturgical reform itself and about parts of the Council such as Dignitatis Humanae. But I’m hopeful that my generation will begin to ask those questions that have seemingly been off limits for the last 50 years, and to critically examine the Council and its reception without the shrill reactions of those who “remember the Council”.

  • JabbaPapa

    There is a great deal of local variation in the various situations “on the continent”.

    The Church is extremely lively in our own diocese, and the typical Sunday Mass in our own parish will have a congregation of around 60-70 children, one or two of their parents and others making up to 200-300 people of working age, and a relatively tiny smattering of OAPs. The typical demographics of local society, basically.

    Our Novus Ordo Mass is given in a very Latinate manner, but the parish was just as lively with our old curate who was lively and engaging in a more modern fashion, but focused every single Mass on the Eucharist and Sacrifice anyway…

  • JabbaPapa

    Cripes !!!

    “1750 onwards” ???!!!???

    So, from precisely the point that the Errors of Modernism started infecting the Church ?

    1) NOT all Encyclicals provide infallible Church dogma

    2) The truly **constant** teaching of the Church is from 1st to 21st centuries, and even to some extent from before the Nativity of Christ in the Old Covenant, and not just from whichever randomly selected period of Church History

    3) The constant teaching of the Church is explained and interpreted by the Magisterium, NOT by one’s personal readings of doctrinal documents

  • JabbaPapa

    There is no Catholic doctrine of Religious “Liberty” — there is a doctrine of Religious Freedom.

    The American and French concepts of Liberty are also non-identical, indeed sometimes in radical opposition.

  • Patrickhowes

    Benedict in the midst of your comments is a very important statement of fact,the words of Father Malachi,”God had withdrawn Grace”.How very true,He did it to the Jews and I believe has done it with us.Yet redemption is always at hand for mankind.

    In 1898 and 1927 a whole generation of Spanish Catholic writers attributed Spain´s loss of its Empire and dominance as a result of its often barbaric actions at home and in its colonies.I remind you all of the “Mission” where the sincere campaign of the Jesuits to evangelise was thwarted by the greedy ambitions of the Spanish Court.Have not we let God down big time?Have not we eaten in the Western world of the tree of bad knowledge,attempting to displace God from our whole existence?.”

  • Bob Hayes

    Impressive analysis PP – and you make very many salient points. The period of exponential growth in the numbers of faithful (as the Western world underwent industrialisation and urbanisation in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries) witnessed a broadening of the reach of Catholicism that in many instances was not accompanied by a deepening of understanding of the Faith. 

    Consequently the many challenges posed by the traumatic upheavals of war and revolution and a rapidly changing civil society left the Church – her priests and laity – ill-prepared to respond to the legion snares of Satan in their many manifestations.

  • JabbaPapa

    There is an interesting, and topical, 2-part interview of ++Müller, the new Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith :

    Part 1 – http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-mueller-the-church-is-not-a-fortress/

    Part 2 – http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-mueller-on-the-sspx-and-his-controversial-writings/

  • Guest

    Well said. Alan. You probably realise as I have done for a long time that this individual is a sanctimonious nutter. He should be advised to commence concentrating on God and God alone. 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    What a totally disingenuous, mealy-mouthed, and inaccurate little historical tour by His Eminence!

    As for + Williamson, is he claiming he’s not validly consecrated? Muller’s antipathy for the SSPX knows few bounds, even his friends would agree with that.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    The phrase used by the Pope is “hermeneutic in continuity of reform” I believe. More changes coming! 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Have you ever assisted at the Old Mass, Jabba, even once?

    “The only *real* issue with the Old Mass, from about 15th century onwards that is, is that the typical Lay Catholics no longer understand the Latin”. 

    Everybody had their Missal. “Oh, the peasants can’t read a Missal”.

    Oh, but they can now, Jabba.

    As for the NO, have you ever lain the Old Mass next to the new, and compared one to the other? 

    Have a look at what was taken out. Cranmer, Bucer and Calvin took the same prayers out, gutted it. And so with the Nervous Ordure. 

  • nytor

    No.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Which country are you in Jabba? 

    It’s not just a question of numbers. It’s a question of what sort of Catholics the people are. Do they know the Faith? What do they believe about the Sacraments? 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    You are just wrong, once again. Religious freedom is not a Catholic construct. Religious liberty is. 

    You show up the nu-Church position very well. Thanks, Jabba.

    Watch out for those innovations! Remember what the Popes and St. Vincent of Lerins say!

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    My post above, listing the instructions of Popes and others back to the Patristic Age as to what to do in such a circumstance, shows you what to do.

    If you don’t do it, your choice of course. 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    St. John of Eudes said that bad clergy was ALWAYS the fault of a bad laity. And my goodness have we had bad clergy, at the top. 

    And still have.

  • johnjohns

    Well done Alan
    You speak for the majority.

  • darylbrown

    An example of revisionist Catholic thinking is seen here on The Catholic Herald blog.
    Commenters include Benedict Carter who fails to address the facts, preferring to romanticise the past.
    And what are the facts?
    Church numbers have declined because of secularisation not because of the changes after 1960.
    Mr Carter’s views are no longer acceptable here where reality has dawned.
    People do not want the old ways back.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Darylbrown, the “Catholic” who is in favour of abortion, women priests etc. (Damian Thompson’s blog in the Daily Telegraph). 

    I take it as a great privilege to be personally targeted by the likes of Darylbrown. They know that it is Traditionalists who are their great enemy.

  • Mph

    I think it more likely that both darylbrown and Benedict Carter are right. Mass attendance is down both because of the liturgical chaos and secularisation. 

    An interesting question would be: did secularisation drive some of the post-conciliar reforms, or did the reforms themselves encourage an already-present secularising influence in the Church? Which is the chicken, which is the egg? (Or is it just a scrambled chickeny-eggy mess?) :-)

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Daryl Brown is in favour of the destruction, he gloats and glories in it. 

    We cannot both be right!

  • am-s

    I don’t think you’ve got the point. It’s not just about bunging in bits of Latin. It’s the entire NO Mass as it stands.

    I assist at the NO (no choice I’m afraid) and the Extraordinary Form (I hate calling it that, but for argument’s sake I shall) whenever I can, but if I could, it would be the EF every single time.

    The EF is so different from the NO as to be virtually unrecognisable. The emphasis is on Calvary, not on Cafod, not in ‘gathering’ as a ‘faith community’, but being at the foot of the cross, it’s all about Him, not us. It’s mindblowing in its depth, the graces that flow from it, and it’s utterly humbling.

    You certainly don’t get that from the NO Mass, the walkabout Peace, or a chorus or two of Bind Us Together and In Bread We Bring You. You just don’t. The very fact that the Priest faces the congregation speaks volumes.

    I wasn’t brought up with the EF, I stumbled across it not being that many of them around, but I was horrified at what had happened to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. And when did this vandalism take place?

    Latin is a red herring, it’s not just the language, important though it is, it’s about a completely different way of thinking about the ‘new’ Mass since VII.

  • Mph

    “The problems that we had after the Council were not caused by the Council. The development of the secularist mentality, for instance, had nothing to do with the Council. It came about before the Council, in the 19th century, when we had secularism promoted by liberals who denied the supernatural and saw the Church only in terms of a charitable institution.”
    I can only half agree with His Excellency here. As far as I see it, the ultimate cause of the problems which came after the Council do have their roots in the rise of modernism, scepticism and liberalism in the 19th century, and, if we trace it further back, to the Protestant revolution.

    But I don’t think it can be denied that the Council and the post-conciliar reforms are the proximate causes for what came afterwards. The faulty interpretation (to put it charitably!) of the Council that was the excuse for so much chaos in so many different areas of the Church would not exist without the Council documents. OK, had we not had the Council or any liturgical reform, we’d probably still find ourselves in a mess today, but I think it would have panned out quite differently.

    In short, I have a certain agreement with Benedict Carter. To claim that the Council is not a cause of the problems that came afterwards is at best a little disingenuous. Like so many things, it’s a bit more complicated than that. 

  • Cjkeeffe

    I think what is needed is to actually read the texts of the councils documents.
    This year of faith is an ideal opportunity to do so.
    If VCII is not a proper council of the church what gurantees the valitdity of all the others. The Council was convoked by Pope John XXIII I’m sure he believed that the Holy Spirit would guide it as He did all previous councils.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Great post, spot on.

  • Cjkeeffe

    I often get the SSPX newsletter by email from America. Theres an interesting refutation of Bishop Williams criticisms of the SSPX General Chapters approach to Rome in it. It seems that the SSPX are not impressed with Bishop Williamsons approach.
    All quite interesting, the only place to be in a storm is woth St Peter.

  • Mph

    I don’t know Daryl, so I don’t know if he does “glory” in the destruction. 

    But that’s not really the point I’m making. Daryl says Mass attendance is down because of secularisation. From what you’ve said in this thread, you see the liturgical changes as the reason for Mass attendances falling off a cliff. I’m merely saying that I think both of you, with regards to the issue of Mass attendances, are right.

  • Bernadette

    Please take no notice of the disgusting insults levelled against you by posters who do  not recognise Christianity. I for one am delighted with converts such as yourself, you bring fresh life into a religion that was on its way to oblivion before Vat11. Anyone who thinks the church can be saved by going backwards has more in common with islam than Christianity.

  • Solly Gratia

    What a lot of e-ink is spilt everytime this subject comes up. Strangely, as a ‘Protestant’ – whatever that means, other than non-Catholic – who is intending to convert to the Church, it seems that the traditionalists are more Protestant in their protesting than those they decry as being cryto-protestants. To reject due authority, to reject established teaching, to ‘go underground’, to condemn others for corruption, manipulation, subterfuge; to call for restoration, and removal of errors, deviancies, etc., was the very essence of Luther’s call to reformation. Newman identified the Arians as the protestants of their day, and it looks like the vocal – as opposed to the non-dissenting – Traditionalists are filling that role today.
    Please stop using the word ‘Protestant’, since it obviously has a meaning of its own in the inner circles of anti-V2 debate. it certainly does not cover the field held by everything from Mass saying Anglo-Catholics to Pentecostal anarchists.

  • JabbaPapa

    What a totally disingenuous, mealy-mouthed, and inaccurate little historical tour by His Eminence!

    I disagree — his analysis of the historical development of liberalism agrees with my own.

    As for + Williamson, is he claiming he’s not validly consecrated?

    He calls him a “Christian Bishop”, so no he’s not claiming so — which logically means he’s accusing Williamson of being non-Catholic.

    There’s no particular warmth towards SSPX in the interview, but he expresses no direct antipathy towards any SSPX but Williamson.