The Fruits of Vatican II
Posted by: tony on 07/28/2007 02:19 PM
Updated by: tony on 07/28/2007 02:19 PM
|
Expires: 08/28/2007 12:00 AM
|
Vatican II
The ever-illuminating Darwin ponders something with regards to Vatican II.
Catholic Cave Man asks in a recent post, what exactly was the point of Vatican II?
The Council of Nicea fought the heresy of Arianism.
The Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon fought the heresy of Nestorianism.
The Council of Trent fought the heresy of Protestantism.
The First Vatican Council fought the heresy of Rationalism.
And with all that said, the fruits of those councils are multiple and manifest. The Church always emerged stronger. And I think we all know what the fruits of Vatican II have shown themselves to be.
I don't know that I'd put it so combatively (I couldn't pull it off anyway; I'm not a marine) but the question remains: How did we get from where we seemed to be fifty years ago to where we are today?
No, Darwin, you wouldn't put it so combatively, and it's not because you're not a marine, it's because you're a gentleman. Your blog is dedicated to light and the Cave is dedicated to heat.
Darwin writes:
It's hard to imagine what the Catholic world would be like today had Vatican II not been called. I don't think it would be the rosy view that some, perhaps, imagine. My suspicion is that, rather than the storm of chaos that broke in the late sixties and throughout the seventies, we would have seen a gradual falling away. Catholics would still have started using birth control. The encyclical condemning it would have been more polemical, and the storm of clergy resistance to it might not have happened, but a great many Catholics would have ignored it nonetheless. Vocations would have gradually dried up (rather than falling precipitously) as many Catholic families were smaller, and people fell prey to the sexual revolution. Mass attendance would have fallen gradually, as people left church-going to mothers, grandmothers, children, and "the devout".
I'm going to be flying basically on gut instict here. I have not done any polls, nor have I convened any focus groups. It's simply that I have become somewhat of a student of Catholic history, and I've decided on what I believe happened.
I think we have seen the falling away that Darwin describes above. I think the Church fathers saw that too, and they went into a panic. "People are leaving the Catholic Church in droves!!! We have to make Catholicism more "relevant" to them!!!". So, with the help of some Protestant theologians, went on a path to make Catholicism more appealing the inhabitants of the chrrent culture. Rather than teach the truths of Christ, handed down in an unbroken line of apostolic succession from Christ himself, they presented a more non-judgemental form of Catholicism. A "I'm ok, you're ok" version that doesn't make any demands on the people. In many cases, not specifically misrepresenting Catholic doctrine, but like the mainstream media, spinning the story by deciding what to cover and what not to.
What they failed to understand is that having more butts in the seats of a church is of no consequence if the church in question has ceased to be Catholic.
The Holy Father understands this. He understands that it's much better to have a smaller, more orthodox, prayerful and most importantly undeniably Catholic congregation, than it is to have a mega-church full of empty suits.
The Holy Father understands that should the Church become more Catholic, there will be some who leave. Much like a 6 year old packing up his peanut butter sandwich and running away from home, he'll be back when he gets hungry and hungry he'll be. After all, St. Peter had it right when he said: "Where shall we go, Lord. You have the words of eternal life".
I'm seeing the renewal, and it's heartening to me. I see it in the new respect for the extraordinary expression of the Latin rite. I see it in the hoards of young people at every World Youth Day. I see it in the slow but sure reversion of focus brought about by our local psrish pastor.
The Holy Spirit is never wrong. I believe that there was a purpose for Vatican II. And quite possibly that purpose was to take away the rich tradition that is authentic Catholicism and wake the people up to what it really means to be Catholic.
The conversation might go something like this:
God: "You want Twinkies? You want soda pop? Here you go!!! Stuff your face with it."
Us: "Mmmmmm... These twinkies are good! More soda, yeah!!! Chocolate cake!!! Woo Hoo!!!"
(40 year later)
Us: "Ooooooohhhhh... I don't feel so good. These twinkies, soda and chocolate cake don't taste good any more!!! We want something better!"
God: "Here, my children, this is the best spiritual food you can eat. Myself in the Body and Blood of my Son."
Us: "Yum!!! We'll never eat twinkies again!"
|
