[paxtecum]

Happy New Year! I hope you don't mind me continuing this thread in a new year but something you wrote has me thinking...I can date many of the Church's current problems from Vatican II, yes. The loss of institutional identity; the abandonment of norms; the obscuring of clarity of mission; and all the problems flowing from that, from declining Mass attendance to chronic vocational shortages. These are all definitely modern challenges to the Church but I don't think they are all directly attributable to the Second Vatican Council. What about modern challenges like the advances in science which tend to undermine instead of uphold faith in God? What about the crisis in the human spirit that evolves out of the nuclear age? What about the acceptance by society at-large of many lifestyles or life-choices that were once considered abhorrent e.g. abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia? WHat about the dangers of materialism in our wealthy modern world? I think that all these things have contributed to the problems you cite, some more than others, but to lay it all at the feet of the Second Vatican Council is to scapegoat what was otherwise a wonderful gathering of the Church's leaders.

You can defend the Council simply on the grounds that the Holy Spirit will not err; but I reply that whatever the Spirit's intentions, the subsequent human application of them has been disastrous. I agree with what you say that some of the applications have been disastrous but I believe that it is impossible to go against the "intentions" of God the Holy Spirit when He allows to be convened an ecumenical council and that council, with His help, leads them to write the documents that then came out of that council. The Holy Spirit's intentions will come through even if we have to go through an extended period of testing first. Historically, with most ecumenical councils, it takes an average of 40 years for the truth to shine forth in all its splendor.

Is there a specific document or part of a document that you find objectionable? Otherwise, if we are just talking in generalities, we can fall prey to the same error that we are criticizing. From what you wrote, we seem to agree that things were interpreted by individuals incorrectly. (Part of the document stated that the Latin language should be retained in the Latin rite and that no females should serve at the altar a la female acolytes and that communion should be received with an outward show of reverence first.)

P.S. This is not a confrontational reply. I am curious as to your concerns since I am a teacher of theology and it helps to know why people think the way they do. Be assured of my respect for you and my gratitude that you are so traditional-minded. We need more people who think this way to stand up in the face of the loss of the faith by many Catholics.

[silmaril]

Since you teach theology, you must understand that I am speaking from a layperson's perspective....I have read Bokenkotter's books, and a few miscellaneous tracts, and that's mostly it. I am therefore comparatively ignorant.

These are all definitely modern challenges to the Church but I don't think they are all directly attributable to the Second Vatican Council. What about modern challenges like....

Perhaps I am being harsh in solely blaming Vatican II. However, I think there is a lot of evidence to suggest that adherence to orthodoxy is a far better response to modernism than its partial abandonment. My personal background is Catholic, but I went to a Baptist college, and my father is Orthodox. In looking at the fundamentalist and evangelical Protestants, and at the Orthodox, I cannot help but notice the contrast between the general vitality (and burgeoning growth) of these congregations, as opposed to the too-often staid and stagnant Catholic parishes I've been to. (As a disclaimer, my current parish is really pretty good.) My conclusion -- anecdotal, to be sure -- is that their rigorous adherence to their respective orthodoxies renders them beacons of clarity and certainty, and hence attractive to those who seek religious experience. It makes me sad and sometimes ashamed to see the Catholic Church as an institution afraid to act with the same self-confidence and righteousness. (When the Church issued its tentative reaffirmation of exclusively Christian salvation last year, and was met with criticism from within the Church, one of my Protestant friends asked, "Why is this even controversial? I don't get it." And I had no good answer.)

So, is Vatican II responsible for all the Church's problems? No. But it is primarily responsible for the Church's feeble responses to those problems. A priest I knew once remarked that "It's not the Church's duty to conform to the times, but the times's duty to conform to the Church." Vatican II very much seems like a case of the former.

Is there a specific document or part of a document that you find objectionable? Otherwise, if we are just talking in generalities, we can fall prey to the same error that we are criticizing.

Well, perhaps I am falling prey to that error. I know little of the specific documents. I only know that the following things were lost with Vatican II:

Latin Mass (not an aesthetic preference, but a real expression of the universal Church).
The rigid moral control exercised by the Church over its parishoners and priests.
The vocal insistence on "no salvation outside the Church."

It's not a long list, but it's a disastrous one.

(Part of the document stated that the Latin language should be retained in the Latin rite and that no females should serve at the altar a la female acolytes and that communion should be received with an outward show of reverence first.)

You're kidding. Really? And it's been ignored....unbelievable.

I am curious as to your concerns since I am a teacher of theology and it helps to know why people think the way they do.

Well, I appreciate the opportunity to rant.