Vatican II as a scapegoat?

[VetusOrdo]

No, they are not irrelevant because they are people and souls just like you and me, who just like you and me can with the grace of God and His Catholic Church inherit heaven. How can they be irrelevant when they just like St. Augustine and so many other converts can convert and have salvation like many Saints.

I think there's some kind of communication breakdown, here.

I'm not saying that the people themselves (heathens, heretics or schismatics) are irrelevant! They are certainly loved by God and can, through His grace, be converted and saved.

The question CelticChristian raised was another thing: the argument goes that just as the Church saw a decline in  Mass attendance, vocations, belief in dogmas and a general wavering of the Faith amongst their faithful, so did other "churches" and cults in the same period of time. The argument therefore is that this phenomenon has nothing to do with VII itself, but with the secular culture around us: an argument frequently proposed by Novus Ordo apologists, btw.

The point I was making is that these "churches" and cults are irrelevant to draw that conclusion because they are false, thus they come and go as Satan wants and God allows. The Church, being divine, thrives indepently of surrounding cultures. Therefore, the current crisis in the Church is because of Vatican II.

I hope we've got this straight now.

[NathanSoc]

How do you respond to the suggestion that Vatican II, modernism etc. are not really to blame for the crisis in Catholicism, and rather the state of modern Catholicism reflects the general decline in religious observance in developed nations?

Certainly where I live, Protestant churches are in an even worse state than the Catholic Church.  The Presbterian church near my house doesn't seem to have a single parishioner without grey hair!  Plus, think of Israel, where most people are nominally Jewish, but in reality is a pretty secular country.  So is Vatican II just a scapegoat for wider societal trends?

There has been no decline in man's need for God. The fact that the churches are failing in their mission does not mean that because they have lost their way they must therefore throw away the map.

But if Vatican II can demonstrate some result as some sort of user-friendly vehicle whereby say Anglicans have returned to the faith of their ancestors, without the "bells and smells" then I am certainly prepared to forgive and forget.

As things stand at the moment, it still has some way to go.

[maso]

Considering the current Church's decline as a normal thing since other religions are experiencing a similar decline is the opinion of the Modernists who claims that the Catholic Church may lead to salvation like Buddhism or Islam. This is denying not only the Holy Spirit's power but its being itself.
The new Pentecost that was due to come in VII's wake is late. They have found an explanation to this delay and they are satisfied.
Certainly the new Pentecost will come but probably on VII's ashes. Don't you think so?

[Catholicmilkman]

I think there's some kind of communication breakdown, here.

I'm not saying that the people themselves (heathens, heretics or schismatics) are irrelevant! They are certainly loved by God and can, through His grace, be converted and saved.

The question CelticChristian raised was another thing: the argument goes that just as the Church saw a decline in  Mass attendance, vocations, belief in dogmas and a general wavering of the Faith amongst their faithful, so did other "churches" and cults in the same period of time. The argument therefore is that this phenomenon has nothing to do with VII itself, but with the secular culture around us: an argument frequently proposed by Novus Ordo apologists, btw.

The point I was making is that these "churches" and cults are irrelevant to draw that conclusion because they are false, thus they come and go as Satan wants and God allows. The Church, being divine, thrives indepently of surrounding cultures. Therefore, the current crisis in the Church is because of Vatican II.

I hope we've got this straight now.

I understood what you meant but I still think that heresies and schisms are important. They have real practical consequences and for that they are very important. As I tried to get across in my first reply on this thread, Modernism is the crisis not just in the Church but also outside the Church and even in nature itself. Modernism is the antithesis of nature or, if you will, anti-nature. The Second Vatican Council is not Modernism as much most people would like to be. Vatican II may lead to, lean toward, and even have Modernism but it is not the same thing. The crisis in the Church has been here for over 100 years, St. Pius X wrote on it, condemned it and strongly fought against it. So I would say Vatican II by itself has nothing to do with this phenomenon. Modern culture (that is, the cult of Modernism) is the cause.

[MagisterMusicae]

How do you respond to the suggestion that Vatican II, modernism etc. are not really to blame for the crisis in Catholicism, and rather the state of modern Catholicism reflects the general decline in religious observance in developed nations?

Certainly where I live, Protestant churches are in an even worse state than the Catholic Church.  The Presbterian church near my house doesn't seem to have a single parishioner without grey hair!  Plus, think of Israel, where most people are nominally Jewish, but in reality is a pretty secular country.  So is Vatican II just a scapegoat for wider societal trends?

Vatican II is not a scapegoat, but it does happen to be a nice synthesis of the problems that had been developing up to that point in time.

The origin of the problems date back to the Renaissance and Humanism (perhaps even before this time to some extent). Vatican II was simply the culmination of the errors that began in the 1300s and slowly grew over the next 700 years, eventually finding some expression in the decrees, statements and actions of the bishops and popes (around the time of Vatican II).

[HMiS]

The Renaissance gave us current Saint Peter's, and many classical literature, nice art, and there exists Christian Humanism too (St. Thomas More, Jacquen Maritain), so I do not agree with the statement these were "14th century errors".

Vatican II is not a scapegoat, but at least sociologically thé core of the Church crisis. Theologically, this has to be evaluated authoritatively later on. It seems it did a lot of wrong there too, but still.

[MagisterMusicae]

The Renaissance gave us current Saint Peter's, and many classical literature, nice art, and there exists Christian Humanism too (St. Thomas More, Jacquen Maritain), so I do not agree with the statement these were "14th century errors".

Vatican II is not a scapegoat, but at least sociologically thé core of the Church crisis. Theologically, this has to be evaluated authoritatively later on. It seems it did a lot of wrong there too, but still.

Not all was bad with the Renaissance.

The Renaissance gave us a resurgence of study in Greek and Latin literature and art. It also gave us an increase in the interest and desire to return to pagan Greece and Rome in thought and morals.

Indeed, one sees Christian Humanism and some of this is arguably not contrary to the Faith, but the Renaissance also produced Secular Humanism and forms of Christian Humanism which run contrary to the Faith (one need look only to the variety of bad Popes that dot the horizon of history at this time).

I did not label all forms of humanism as errors. I labeled the general subject as a source of errors. With some exception, Humanism in general was a source for most of the errors which have plagued the Church and Society since the Renaissance.

The beginnings of Absolutism also arise.

One sees the increase in a pursuit of science, but also an increase in its treatment as contrary to the Faith, or at least a wholly secular pursuit which must be free from Church oversight.

Art and Architecture developed quickly, but also did bad and sinful arts also arise. Some of the greatest works in history were produced, but also some of the artists who hated the Church plated their seeds. On the plus side: We have St. Peter's. Sed Contra: We also got Leonardo (da Vinci) -- If you need proof of the problems of his art one need look no further than the androgynous painting "St. John the Baptist" and the earlier sketch of "Angel in the Flesh" where Leonardo has sketched the same character sans animal skin, in a very "excited" state.

Seeds were planted at the Renaissance which when tamed and managed could be handled, but when allowed to grow without restraint gave us Luther, Calvin, Bacon and those men who followed after. The seeds of Modernism also are planted at this time. Had good popes ruled during these days, we might be in a much better place today. Alas, they had the Popes they deserved.

I do not pretend that the Renaissance was wholly bad, but to pretend that it was not the source of many errors which still plague the Church is not giving a full view to History.

[ggreg]

How do you respond to the suggestion that Vatican II, modernism etc. are not really to blame for the crisis in Catholicism, and rather the state of modern Catholicism reflects the general decline in religious observance in developed nations?  So is Vatican II just a scapegoat for wider societal trends?

No, because then the expression would read, "As the world goes so goes the Church".

Vatican II and the rubber-stamping of modernism and confusion and free-thought it gave birth to are clearly to blame.  I've never seen a clearer cause-effect relationship.

[Catholicmilkman]

I do not pretend that the Renaissance was wholly bad, but to pretend that it was not the source of many errors which still plague the Church is not giving a full view to History.

The Renaissance was a rebirth alright, a rebirth of Paganism, that is, Neo-paganism.

[HMiS]

Like the Second Vatican Council was far more complex than the "orchestrated ploy of high-degree Freemasons and Communists" the average Joe Trad makes out of, so the Renaissance was a far more complex and far less evil development in itself than the average Joe Trad makes out of it.

And we have had moral bad behaviour by bishops, prince-archbishops and popes already in the high Middle Ages.

There is something about each period. The Middle Ages had too much state interference into the Church for example. And the 16th and 17th century too much of religious fanaticism, Protestant paranoidical obscurantism (the Witch burnings in Lutheran Germany, Holland and England).

I do agree that Absolutism, opportunism, lack of Christian government etc. all were somehow stimulated by the Renaissance, and that in the end this did a lot of harm to the Church, but the Renaissance in itself was rather positive on the science level. Ideologically speaking it had deficiencies, but not to such a degree as would allow us to blame the Renaissance itself for this.

We had 18th century Pontiffs in Rome doing homilies on Greek mythology and Roman art too. And they were in the "Enlightenment" period.