The Church Since Vatican 2

"BY THEIR FRUITS you shall know them," the Bible tells us. If we are totally objective we must admit that up to the present Vatican II has produced no good fruits at all. This might appear to be an outrageous and irresponsible allegation, but a careful examination of the facts will prove that it is totally objective. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre has stated that the reforms enacted in the name of Vatican II "have contributed and are still contributing to the demolition of the Church, the ruin of the priesthood, the destruction of the Sacrifice and the sacraments, the disappearance of the religious life, as well to the emergence of a naturalist and Teilhardian doctrine in universities, seminaries, and the religious education of children—a teaching born of Liberalism and Protestantism, and condemned many times by the solemn Magisterium of the Church."

I have no doubt that there are many who would consider such an allegation unworthy of consideration simply because it had been made by Archbishop Lefebvre. Well, for those who are unwilling to accept this gloomy assessment of the fruits of the Council, let us quote another authority who, one might hope, would not be dismissed so lightly. I refer to Pope Paul VI. The Council had no more ardent advocate than this unhappy Pontiff. But by 1968 he had reached the stage of lamenting the fact that the Church was engaged in a process of self-destruction (autodistruzione). On the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, 1972, he went as far as saying that somehow or other Satan had found an opening into the Church and was suffocating the fruits of the Second Vatican Council. Father Louis Bouyer, the French Oratorian, is one of the most distinguished theologians and liturgists in the Church today. He had been an expert adviser at Vatican II, a peritus (some of the periti were orthodox). Soon after the Council closed, Father Bouyer wrote an enthusiastic book explaining the great benefits it would bring. In 1969 he wrote another book, The Decomposition of Catholicism, in which he set out the reality of the Council as opposed to the hopes it had engendered. "Unless we are blind," he wrote, "we must even state bluntly that what we see looks less like the hoped for regeneration of Catholicism than its decomposition."

The self-destruction of the Church according to Pope Paul VI, the decomposition of Catholicism, according to Father Bouyer—that is the reality of the Church since Vatican II. And as for the liturgy, here is Father Bouyer's assessment: "We must speak plainly: there is practically no liturgy worthy of the name today in the Catholic Church."

Fantasy versus Fact Officially, of course, the Church is not undergoing a process of self-destruction. We are witnessing not decomposition but renewal. In an article in the Toronto Star this month, 6 October 1984, Cardinal Emmet Carter, an aging and rather silly liberal, heaped praise upon Pope Paul VI and the Second Vatican Council. Cardinal Carter writes:

He was wonderful. It was he who brought the Second Vatican Council to fulfilment and fruition. He implemented its decrees with remarkable insightful application and faithful interpretation. He was harried, hounded, and harassed by small-minded people who were making the fatal error of thinking that the Council had abolished the Catholic Church instead of renewing it. Well, according to my dictionary, "renewal" involves transferring to new life, invigorating, or regenerating. It would be interesting if Cardinal Carter could tell us exactly where this renewal or regeneration is taking place—certainly not in his own country of Canada where the Catholic Church is characterized by what can only be described as an accelerating degeneration. This is true of almost every country in the western world. In every aspect of the life of the Church subject to statistical evaluation the renewal of which the Cardinal speaks exists only in the realm of fantasy. In the real world Mass attendance has decreased by percentages ranging from a modest 22% in England to 70% in France and Holland; there has been a catastrophic decline in baptisms, as much as 50% in Britain and the U.S.A. Conversions has declined by anything from 25% to 80%, while ordinations have declined by as much as 97%. To make matters worse there has been an exodus from the priestly and religious life. In the U.S.A. alone, 10,000 priests have abandoned their vocation and over 50,000 nuns have left their convents. I might add that the decline in seminary enrollment and exodus from the priesthood is much less alarming than the fact that many of those being ordained appear to have a very inadequate grasp of the Catholic Faith, which is putting it mildly!

The majority of laymen will have felt the effect of the "Spirit of Vatican II" in six main areas: the liturgy; the religious education of Catholic children; the moral teaching of the Church; the increasing political involvement of the clergy, principally on behalf of left-wing causes; ecumenism; and what I will term "democratic dialogue."

Before making a brief comment on each of these areas, I must mention once more the distinction I made earlier between the Council itself and the Council as an event. The abuses, abominations, and imbecilities which now proliferate throughout the Church can rarely be justified by citing a direct instruction of the Council. They originated rather in the ubiquitous "Spirit" of the Council which emanated from the Council as an event, but those who complain about any post-conciliar aberration will be condemned for opposing the Second Vatican Council by the priest, bishop or religious sister perpetrating the abuse; yet in many cases these abuses are diametrically opposed to what the Council actually ordered.

The outrages which scandalize the faithful were not envisaged, let alone mandated, by the bishops who voted for the Council document on the liturgy. In some cases they were initiated by the zealots who took control of the Commissions set up to implement the Council after the bishops had returned to the dioceses. The late Archbishop R.J. Dwyer of Portland, Oregon, the most cultured and erudite American bishop of the post-war era, considered that the greatest mistake of the Council Fathers was to allow the implementation of the Council to fall into the hands of these men, taken in the main from the ranks of the periti. God forbid that the interpretation of the Council should ever fall into the hands of these men, England's Cardinal Heenan had warned. But this is precisely what happened. Other abuses were initiated by rebellious priests, and rather than discipline them the Vatican eventually capitulated and legalized their rebellion. Communion in the hand provides such an example. As every student of history knows, surrendering to the demands of rebels never brings about an end to the rebellion, it simply prompts further demands. In 1980 I had a long discussion with Cardinal Seper who was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican department responsible for doctrinal orthodoxy. He admitted to me that the Pope no longer exercised effective control over the bishops in the U.S.A. A good number of American dioceses are now, to all intents and purposes, autonomous Modernist enclaves where the only crime is to be loyal to the Pope or to Tradition.

1. Liturgical Abuses But to return to the subject of the liturgy, Father Louis Bouyer, whom I have already cited, claims that there is practically no liturgy worthy of the name in the Catholic Church today, and that what has been imposed upon us in the name of the Council represents, in fact, a contradiction of what the Fathers of the Council and the great figures of the Liturgical Movement desired. The Council authorized no more than a moderate liturgical reform which no reasonable person would have opposed. It stated that all lawfully acknowledged liturgical rites were to be preserved and fostered in every way, and that there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly required them. But what has happened? Let Father Joseph Gelineau tell us. Father Gelineau was a peritus at the Council and he has been in the vanguard of the elite corps of liturgical commisars which has been imposing liturgical changes on us since it ended. Father Gelineau is, however, an honest commissar. He makes no secret of what has happened since the Council; and I quote:

To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.

The rite of Mass as you knew it until the post-conciliar revolution began in 1965 was the culmination of a gradual and natural development under the influence of the Holy Ghost which lasted for fifteen hundred years. By the year of Our Lord 1570, it had reached a near perfection as anything upon this earth can ever be. Father Faber described it as "the most beautiful thing this side of heaven." In the year 1570, Pope St. Pius V codified the Roman Rite of the Mass as it then existed forever. No priest, he said, could ever be forced to say any other form of Mass. Vatican II ordered that all lawfully acknowledged rites should be preserved and fostered in every way. That is what the Council ordered. Father Gelineau boasts that the Roman Rite has been destroyed. That is what has happened.

There are two categories of people whose views are listened to with the greatest respect by Catholic bishops today: Protestants and sociologists. Well, here is the testimony of a man who is a Protestant and a sociologist. Professor Peter L. Berger is a Lutheran professor of sociology. In a lecture delivered at the Harvard Club in New York on 11 May 1978, he commented upon the changes in our liturgy from the dispassionate standpoint of a professional sociologist. He remarked that if a thoroughly malicious member of his own profession, bent on injuring the Catholic community as much as possible, had been an adviser to the Church, he could hardly have done a better job.

Professor Dietrich von Hildebrand, probably the greatest Catholic philosopher and lay theologian in the English-speaking world this century, made an almost identical remark: "Truly," he said, "if one of the devils in C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy he could not have done it better."

Malcolm Muggeridge is one of the most distinguished converts received into the Church since the Council. He held back from this step for many years largely due to the crazy antics of so many Catholic clerics. He made the mistake of confusing the Church itself with individual churchmen. He told me in a long interview I had with him last year that he now recognizes this was a mistake, but that he still holds to an opinion he expressed before his conversion, that if our bishops stationed men with ships outside our churches to keep people away they could not be doing a more effective job.

I have cited these three men because they are not ignorant, they are not illiterate; their opinions cannot be dismissed as of no consequence as are those of us of lesser intellectual stature who dare to suggest that the new clothes worn by the Emperor of the great conciliar renewal do not exist, that the alleged renewal is no more than a delusion concocted by those in authority who dare not face up to the fact of a disintegrating Church.

2. Irreligious Education The second way in which many Catholic laymen have been affected by the spirit of the Council concerns the education of their children. In place of the Catholic Faith bequeathed to us by Our Lord Jesus Christ, and which He commanded His Church to teach, we are gradually seeing a mish-mash of philanthropy and sociology. Many of the defective texts used today are clearly the progeny of the notorious Dutch Catechism which was published in 1967, within only two years of the closing of Vatican II. The state of the Church in Holland has now degenerated to the extent that being an orthodox Catholic there is akin to being a Catholic in England in penal times. Professor van der Ploeg, one of Europe's most outstanding Biblical scholars, assessed the Catechism as follows:

The Dutch Catechism is, from one end to the other, a manual of Modernism for which it aims to win an acceptance everywhere. In order not to alarm its readers the true import of its teaching is frequently concealed by deceptive and ambiguous phrasing, although at times the authors have the insolence to flaunt it openly. The Dutch Catechism has already caused incalculable harm throughout the world, as a Roman Cardinal confided to me recently. The Dutch Catechism was written for adults; but it became the model for countless textbooks for adults and children. Its influence upon the quite deplorable Veritas series, which is widely used in Ireland and Great Britain, is obvious. In a lecture given in Paris on 8 January 1983, Archbishop Ryan of Dublin, lamented the fact that in spite of the time, money and energy spent on the production of elaborate textbooks and tapes many children emerge from the primary and post primary schools without a basic knowledge of the Faith and the Christian way of life. Canon George Telford is a priest of my own diocese of Southwark. He was at one time our Catechetical Director, as well as being Vice Chairman of the National Department of Catechetics. Canon Telford is a very orthodox priest who believed that children in Catholic schools should be taught the Catholic Faith. He fought an almost lone fight for a number of years, enduring much criticism and even abuse, but finally resigned when it was clear that he could expect no backing whatsoever from the bishops in his attempt to uphold orthodoxy. In his letter of resignation he made a statement which says all that needs to be said about contemporary catechetics:

Modern catechetics is theologically corrupt and spiritually bankrupt. Its strictures and innovations are irrelevant and unmeaningful for Catholic Faith, and can achieve nothing but its gradual dilution. The authentic renewal of catechesis will come not from them but from the faithful. "Theologically corrupt and spiritually bankrupt"—that is the religious education being given to the generality of children in our Catholic schools today. I cannot imagine anyone better qualified than Canon Telford to make such an assessment.

Cardinal Ratzinger, the present Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, spoke at the same conference as Archbishop Ryan. He admitted candidly that there is a crisis in catechetics; that it had been a fundamental and grave mistake to suppress the catechism; that the method of teaching the Faith had come to be considered as more important than what was taught; this resulted in the attitude that religion must be adapted to what is acceptable to man, rather than man adapting his life to the demands of the Faith; behind the rejection of the catechism and the collapse of traditional religious instruction lies a rejection of traditional Catholic dogma; and that the experience of the community is the ultimate criterion for deciding belief. The Cardinal had no hesitation in telling us where we must go to discover what it is that we must believe—it is the Catechism of the Council of Trent published by St. Pius V.

Cardinal Ratzinger's courageous declaration has given new heart to many parents throughout the world who have been fighting the dilution of the Faith for almost twenty years now, and had been ridiculed for making precisely the claims that the Cardinal has now made. Almost invariably, diocesan bishops had sided with the catechetical directors who were destroying the faith of Catholic children. Parents or teachers who protested at the new textbooks were told that they were against the Council, that they were ignorant, that they were unchristian—or all three, and a few other things besides! Yet now the Cardinal Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has endorsed their stand, just when some of them were beginning to fear that perhaps they really were ignorant and unbalanced.

But this Gantin letter was answered, above, and by others. You don't convince anyone by ignoring replies. You have to address them, and consider them.

Please do not play games! Please point to where "this Gantin letter was answered, above, and by others." I am not a mind reader.

".....I do not have to defend the Pope in his attempts to reconcile schismatics......"

A false 'Catholic' organization exist in China with the endorsement of its atheist government. That same demonic 'church' is wrongly supported by Wojtyla, and you find no fault with his heretical decision?

Why does your masked evil fail to come to the aid of the true and persecuted Roman Catholic Church in China?

Is Wojtyla not the alleged defender of the One True Faith?

Is it not an abominable sin for Wojtyla to turn his back to true Chinese Latin Roman Catholics, while embracing satanic communist heretics?

Is this the purpose of the false church Wojtyla now leads into hell?

He's a flake. He can bitch all he likes about Davies. It means nothing.

That wasn't the point. What you could learn from reading this particular article by Stephen Hand was that the neo-Catholic slanderers of traditional Catholics were busy claiming that Michael Davies and Archbishop Lefebvre were hand-in-glove throughout Davies life in one place, while over here on FR Hand's pal Sean OL is claiming the opposite, that Davies repudiated Lefebvre.

Michael Davies and Archbishop Lefebvre were hand-in-glove throughout Davies life

That they agreed. I think it was Davies who wrote a defense of Lefebvre. But I never heard that Davies made that final connection between the things he described in monographs and books such as, Cranmer's Godly Order, and what even Paul VI referred to as "innovations" falsely promoted in the name of the council, even by Paul VI. Davies believed in what I think is an overbroad sense of indefectibility which had the effect of a total 'infallibility', to the detriment of souls.

Firstly:
I see - you're a sedevacantist!

Debating sedevacantists is equivalent to debating Satan!

Satan IS extremely intelligent - some sedes also are very intelligent. The net result is that both Satan AND sedes are "outside the Church".

Secondly:
That I state the it is the Pope's "job" to attempt to reconcile schismatics (including Chinese schismatics AND sedevacantists!) is translated as an "apostacy by the pope."

It is NOT! Christ Jesus instructed His Shepherds to even "leave the 99" in order to bring the "one" back to the fold so that "they may be one".

Begone Satan! I will have none of your insidious drivel!

Just read what people have written. And don't YOu try to waste their time. Fair?

What people? In which post? What text? Generalizations applying to limitless posts is NOT fair!

Here are extracts from specific documents on the excommunication and schism: http://jloughnan.tripod.com/schmex1.htm All the weeping and groaning of SSPX adherents cannot get past the fact of the excommunication. The ONLY thing left open to them is whether the excommunications were "just." However, Our Lord NEVER placed any resprictions on "whatsoever...bind/loose".

To curry favor with a heretical organization controlled by atheistic communists attending Roman Catholic Schools of higher learning within the city of Rome, and permitting them to say Holy Mass in Catholic churches throughout the United States, is to abandon the oath Karol Jozef Wojtyla promised God and His faithful!

You blindly declare you do not have a responsibility to stand against violations of Sacred Dogma by a priest, bishop, or pope. How very V2 of you.

All the weeping and groaning of SSPX adherents cannot get past the fact of the excommunication

But again, you're as phony as a four-dollar bill. I see it. Everyone sees it. But you don't see it. You blather on about 'sistren and brethren' in your 'new order' 'worthship service'. I know this for a fact. There's a lot of cant, a lot of jargon. And it's obvious you don't mean a word of it. Look at these very messages. Look at your two-faced attitude when it comes to the schismatic Greek. This stuff is plain to see. You're no different than a Carville or a Begala trying to con people into the latest Dem scam.

Now your objections, as such, have long been answered, and were even in these threads. That you continue with such animosity toward Catholics is something you chose to do, as an act of will. It's not holiness you defend or seek. It's chaos and destruction. And I really think you know that, yourself. I don't think I'm telling you something that you don't already know.

"But overall, one has to give him (Davies) credit for always making the best of the situation, and whenever his optimism strayed too far into fantasy, he would eventually correct himself."

Yes, his approach was such that all shades of tradition from tepid to staunch claimed him as one of their own. Quite a remarkable feat among people who are prone to splinter at the slightest inflection! But it was eventually clear where he belonged with his position in the broader Una Voce organisation. This gave him access to certain cardinals in Rome without stopping him from associating with people like the Remnant group. But it would be a pity if his liking of red and purple weakened the impact of his work and we learn of another death-bed retraction or modification.

The article begins: "BY THEIR FRUITS you shall know them"

Recent fruit from a few good bishops:
. . . Archbishop Burke says he'll continue politics-abortion campaign
. . . Bishop Gracida's Twelve Step Program for Bishops
. . . The Latin Mass continues to be nurtured in Phoenix by Bishop Olmsted

A good bishop bears good fruit.
A bad bishop cuts away at the tree.

I went over to the article in the Phoenix Catholic Sun that you provided with your link. It is a good article and the picture shows how beautiful the Church is and how well they were able to adapt. Is there any chance you could start a thread with that article. I think many Catholics would be heartened to see and read such good news!!Thanks!!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.