Would the Church have had rough weather without Vatican II? Almost certainly. Would it have weathered those storms in better shape without Vatican II? Almost certainly. By every measure Vatican II was a disaster for the Church and I am tired of the pretense that it was some brilliant moment in the life of the Church. Pope John XXIII was a holy man, but not the brightest cleric around, whose health was beginning to fail. He allowed ambitious clerics around him to con him into calling Vatican II, and Vatican II quickly became a vehicle for clerics who didn’t much like Catholicism as it had been constituted for centuries. They turned Vatican II into a wreckovation project and we are still living among the ruins they created.
The Catholicism Eradicator
Donald R. McClarey
Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three, one in Heaven, and happily married for 41 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.
I would agree that it was abused by power-hungry clerics, but from what I know of it, the problem seems to be more that “The Spirit of Vatican II” was abused more than the actual decisions made. Anytime someone questioned an action a priest was taking, the excuse was always that people misunderstood the “spirit” of it rather than the actual meaning. The real issue was enforcement, I think. Those individuals abusing Vatican II were allowed to run rampant.
That said, I think it’s also rather presumptuous that the Church would have been better without it. Plenty of events since then that have eroded the Church without looking to that single one, and there is no telling how Vatican II may have prevented any of them. It’s entirely possible that it was a bad decision, but simply the best of many.
Vatican II is like Communism, in that its true believers maintain— despite all the evidence that it’s a bust— that it just hasn’t yet been truly implemented. Gotta ignore all the devastation it’s caused in the past and really, really commit to the program and this time it’ll create a paradise.
And both communism and Vatican II will create an insular nomenklatura that will give lip service to the goals of the revolution whilst ignoring the increasing decadence of the revolution’s leadership.
Oh, and any critics of the program are reactionary haters and they must be demonized and eliminated.
Sound familiar?
Yes, if only Uncle Joe Stalin knew what was going on then things would be different. Unfortunately, the mail doesn’t work very well between here in Siberia and Moscow. Truthfully, it wasn’t just Vatican II, because there is some good in those documents. Simply put, we have had popes who allowed the little Marxists of the Church (JPII’s pet name for Cardinal Marx) to make it to the highest levels. JPII elevated Bergoglio to bishop over the objections of his own superior. Then he made the unbelieving Argentinian a cardinal. Personnel is policy, and we’ve had popes who promoted the very men wrecking the Church today. Documents didn’t do it. Unfaithful, weak men did.
FOS.
I’ll take it for granted that God can make something great from sour grapes. He has shown us His works in the past where only defeat and failure are recognized by mere men, His success and grace shines through. So many grumblings of the chosen people of today. No water! They cried to Moses. NO FOOD! They shouted.
Where is YOUR FAITH you chosen people of today.
Do you really think that God hasn’t been with us throughout this journey?
The Divine Mercy devotion and fruits thereof came from a weak man.
God works HIS best work through weak men.
Its the Proud men whom He is not happy with…..remember????
I’ve cited it here before, so forgive my repetition, but anyone who wants to understand Vatican II in the context of everything that was going on in the Church throughout the XXth Century needs to read Iota Unum by Romano Amerio. It’s a scholarly tome and not an easy read, but if approached with open eyes and an open mind, it will profoundly affect your perspective. TLDR: Vatican II was not the cause, but the most obvious symptom of structural rot dating back a very long time.
Problem with V II is that was actually a completion extension of V I and, as is the way with most bureaucracies, grew like Topsy to the point of being unrecognizable as to the original purpose. A bit like going from hang gliders to jet planes without the intermediate stop at propeller aircraft. As a result, someone is forever tinkering with the product to everyone’s disadvantage. Little wonder that the above photo evokes feelings of both nostalgia and disappointment.
Frank, I agree. The rot we see today was fermenting long before Vatican II was ever begun. I think the Council just gave a veneer of respectability to the desire to demolish Tradition and replace it, when the intention was merely to find more effective ways to communicate unchanging Tradition.
The demolition was carried out by men who grew up amidst a Church that appeared to be thriving, yet they itched to sweep away many of the very things that gave the institutions their strength.
There are Church leaders who have critiqued the results of Vatican II; but as a whole, Church leadership absolutely refuses to admit that the last 50 years have been a disastrous self-mutilation that has brought few positives and much to regret. What part of the Church is doing better now than it was fifty years ago? In what way is the Church today better fulfilling Her Great Commission than She was before?
[…] Away, Waiting for the Pontificate to End – Donald R. McClarey, J.D./The American Catholic Vatican II, The Catholicism Eradicator – Donald R. McClarey, J.D., at The American Catholic 3/14/23 – Donald R. McClarey, […]
Philip: I count myself a weak man, as I know that reality is what keeps me close and dependent on God. And, Francis has been good for my faith. Because, if none of it matters, then I shouldn’t be upset by his attempts to subvert the true faith. And, I have no doubt about the outcome of all this as God will never abandon his people. So, if you misread my post, I should have been more clear. What I stand by is the fact JPII left a personnel legacy that we are still suffering under. There is a lot of reporting that he was told about McCarrick and promoted him anyway. Even Francis acknowledged there was a gay lobby in the Vatican, and they didn’t just spring up under Benedict. In fact, I think history has shown that Pope Benedict was much better from a personnel standpoint. I don’t discount for a minute all the good JPII did for Christ’s one true Church, but I don’t have blinders on about the predicament we are currently in, and how we got here.
FOS.
My sincere apology for my tone.
We do know that unholy factions reside within the Vatican.
When he knew, what he knew, who informed him and who misled him are good questions regarding St. Pope JPII and the crisis.
Looking back at his legacy I will never believe that he acted in a manner which would go against his core beliefs. It doesn’t add up.
That’s my naivete as some will charge me with, and that’s ok.
The factions within the walls that wish to destroy her, our Holy Catholic Church, are real. I apologize that my frustration is the continuation of the blame game.
So, it’s my fault. I didnt have to say anything. My blinders, hopefully, will help me to focus on personal sanctification first then that of my neighbors. The trust that we have Jesus present to us, body, blood, soul and divinity, gives me greater trust that the Lord will intervene in His way, in His time and that our focus must be on the present. Predicaments, hopefully, will be used as occasions to cease poor judgments in the future and eradicate abusers.
You have reason to post judgement on failed leadership regarding a major crisis within the Church.
I just hope that what we don’t know concerning every aspect of the leadership doesn’t hinder our ability to evangelize, because if it does, the unholy factions win.
Peace father of seven.
Peace, Phillip!
I trust the Holy Spirit.
I don’t pretend to know or understand all of the ramifications of Vatican 2. I do believe it occurred under the auspices of the Holy Spirit; and, I believe its fruits are positive and necessary. I agree with those who say some have promoted a misunderstanding of the Council, I hope unintentionally.
I strongly believe Vatican 2has been instrumental for helping the Church sheherd the faithful and to evangelize unbelievers. I further believe its fruits are real and only slowly being understood and recognized.
My faith is in Jesus and the Institution He created to ensure His faithful flock could be confident it has the Holy Spirit as its inspiration, its guardian and its guide. Keep the faith brothers, the Lord is at work in our midst whether we inderstand what is happening or not. All that is allowed to occur in this world by almighty God serves one purpose, maximizing the salvation of souls. All of this is not to say trials and tribulations have not and are not testing my faith, but i repeatedly fall back on the realization that my understanding is not most important. Rather, my trust is.
I would agree that “the spirit of Vatican II” is radically different from Vatican II itself. It’s just an observable fact that most of the implementations of Vatican II had nothing to do with the actual decisions of the council.
But at the same time it was clear that this was exactly what was going to happen throughout the council. What I mean is that there was a faction of priests and theologians who were looking for any cover to attack tradition, and it was obvious that Vatican II would provide that cover (given that it made any drastic changes to the Mass at all) regardless of what precisely the council decided. That’s not to say that everything produced in the actual V2 documents is a great idea, but to large extent the documents are irrelevant for what came later since they were viewed (by those internal agents attacking Church Tradition) as merely a license to anything whatsoever in “the spirit of Vatican II.”
The situation is similar to the current business about “the synod on synodality.” We all know that regardless of how it ends up there will be priests and bishops saying that “the spirit of synodality” means we must accept gay marriage, female priests, etc.
“I trust the Holy Spirit.”
I always trust God. I would note however that when the clergy act like complete fools their default position too often is to claim to be acting under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I assume God must get sick of the number of human disasters and follies He thus has attributed to Him.
There has always been rot in the Church. Sinister figures, heresies, and apostasies run amok (eg. Arianism, Martin Luther, possibly Bergoglio?). But Vatican II seems to be something different. The Church as a whole has significantly changed into something kind of effeminate and weak. The base premise question should ask, “what was Vatican II and what wasn’t it”? I can answer what it wasn’t and it wasn’t a dogmatic council. Nothing dogmatic was proclaimed. But it was proclaimed as a “pastoral council” by John 23 and Paul 6 what ever that means. That’s what it was; nothing more and nothing less. Now throw in the handful of ambiguities that situate itself in some of the documents (look it up yourself; see Archbishop Lefebvre or Bishop A. Schneider). Then sprinkle in the “Sprit of Vatican II” and voila, the creation of a new church with a new mass and new catholics (see the movie for free on YouTube with Martin Sheen, “The Catholics”). But how can this “pastoral council” become a super duper council extraordinaire? Seemingly negating all prior dogmatic councils and papal encyclicals. Any answers would be welcome.