Tuesday, January 28, 2014


MY COMMENTS FIRST: Anyone my age and older knows full well that what happened after Vatican II in the late 1960's and well into the 90's from that point, created such confusion, dissension and outright rebellion that the Church has yet to recover. 

But more pernicious is the fact that many Catholics formed in the drug-like induced euphoria of the "coloring book era" of the post-Vatican II era and who remained in the Church practicing frequently or infrequently actually believe the Catholic "lite" they were taught and to boot, they think that the Church actually changed the substance of her teachings in the areas of faith and morality, what is called the "Deposit of Faith." They think it is perfectly fine to approach the Catholic Faith with a subjective mentality and to pick and choose what they will accept and won't. 

Those progressives in the Church when confronted with empirical evidence about the terrible declines in the Church since Vatican II glibly say that things would have been worse with no change. 

I say, bunk! If we had actually implemented Vatican II by the letter rather than some made up spirit of Vatican II things today would be 100% better! And if the older 1962 Missal could have been allowed along side the newer one, things would have been 100% better and if the priesthood and religious life did not depart from a sound renewal shortly after Vatican II and make religious life ugly and completely irrelevant things would be 100% better today.

I'd say if there had been no change, no Vatican II, in lieu of what could have been with the proper implementation of Vatican II, things would be 100% better today compared to the silly "spirit" of Vatican II that continues to rear its ugly head.

But things are that are and most of us are realists. There is no going back prior to Vatican II. There is no going back to the actual Vatican II documents and actually implementing them as these are written.  The major problem is when those in leadership in the Church see the empirical data of the decline and then shrug their shoulders in resign and do nothing or keep doing the same things that have caused this dramatic slide thinking that what was done isn't responsible for what has happened! That's insanity! I know this, because a real genius has said so!

This is from:

Traditional Catholic Priest

by Fr. Peter Carota

Before and After Vatican II Statistics Do Not Lie

Here are some more factual statistics about the Holy Roman Catholic Church before Vatican II and after here in the United States.  These Statistics are from CARA Georgetown University.500px-Gap_Between_Priests_and_Catholics_in_USA.svg
Priests: 1945 = 38,451  1950 = 42,970  1955 = 46,970  1960 = 53,796  1965 = 58,000
Priests: 2013 = 38,800  Diocesan Priests = 26,500 and  Religious = 12,300
Ordinations to the Priesthood: 1965  =  994
Ordinations: 2013  =  511
Seminarians: 1965  =  49,000  Graduate level: = 8325
Graduate level Seminarians: 2013  = 3694
Religious Sisters in the whole world 1973  = 1 million.  In 2013  =  721,935.
Parishes: 1965  =  17,637
Parishes: 2013  =  17,413
Mass Attendance in 1965: 65 % of Catholics attended Sunday Mass
2013, Only 24 % of Catholics attend Sunday Mass.  mattendGraph from CARA Georgetown U.
You can see by this graph, that since Vatican II, 50 % more Catholics have stopped attending Sunday Mass.
Students in 1965 at 8414 elementary schools = 2.6 million.
Students in 2013 at 5636 elementary schools = 1.5 million.
Marriages in the Catholic Church have gone down to very few too.mstatusGraph from CARA Georgetown U.
World wide there were 419,728 priests in 1970.  In 2013 there are only 412,236.  Yet the Catholic population has doubled from 653,000 in 1970 to 1,196,000 in 2013.
Out of all the increased Catholics, why are not more vocations?  Because we live the Catholic lite religion.  So many call themselves Catholics, but do not live out their faith.
The average age of priests in the US in 1970 was 35.  In 2013 it is around 63.  Here is a photo of priests at a funeral in California a month ago.20140107__local_funeral~1_GALLERY
In the traditional orders you find a way much younger age medium.
traditional-religious-nunsAs the saying goes, Biological Solution, Biological Solution.  Soon we will be out of the “Vatican II Generation” and in not so long of a time into the “Traditional Catholic Generation”.  Death comes sooner or later for all of us.  Jesus save your Church.

MY FINAL COMMENT:  I realize that it is mean spirited to call upon the nuclear option of the death of all clergy and laity my age and older in the next 40 years. But as mean spirited as this hope is, it is true, my age generation as well as those older than me, especially those in the throws of enjoying a brief revival of the 1970's euphoria that caused all the problems to begin with, we'll all be gone in the next 10 to 40 years, Gone With the Wind and the younger, more traditional minded clergy and laity will ascend to leadership.

Let's pray that they won't make the same messes. But let us trust that the Lord will get the Church through despite herself!


Henry said...

In regard to the liturgy, before Vatican and under Pius XII, the liturgical movement to involve people in actual participation was proceeding at light speed (by Church standards). Witness, for instance, the 1958 instruction encouraging full vocal participation in the Mass, including permission for people to chant the propers (practically nowhere done even today either EF or OF).

The result after Vatican II was to stop this constructive liturgical reform in its tracks, replacing it with the chaos that persists in many places to this day.

Having been there then--fully familiar with the movement toward participatio actuosa well before Vatican II--and through it all, I am fully convinced that, except for the intervention of the Council, positive and constructive liturgical reform would have by now advanced further than it actually has, and, for example, that the very positive things now getting underway in the guise of the "reform of the reform" would already be accomplished, rather than still lying in the future, for those living long enough to see the current mess cleaned up.

Although no one can be sure, and it can be argued that much of the Church's decline in recent decades would have happened anyway, I myself believe (with Card. Ratzinger) that the crisis in the Church is due to the disintegration in the liturgy, and that otherwise the full and vibrant Catholic parish life thatI saw in several parishes and dioceses before Vatican II would still be seen today.

John Nolan said...

Bishop Athanasius Schneider has indeed called for a 'Syllabus of Errors' regarding the interpretation of the Council, but I suspect it will have to wait until he becomes pope.

John said...

The TLM gave Catholics not only a sure means of seeing at least through a glass darkly.

It also gave us a distinctive cultural identity. We knew that we were on the right track because our spiritual fathers taught us that outside the Church was no salvation. We had a strong spiritual and cultural identity. We were confident.

This confidence gave us hope anstrength. It was no empty pride. Our many priests, brothers, siters and generous lay Catholics served the sick, educated children and reared millions of all around good citizens.

In brief, the Church was instrumental in saving souls as well as keeping the world more user friendly. Politicians of any faith, but Catholic ones particularly, would have not been so keen to embrace the culture of death prior to the time we opened the windows as the saying goes.

[Culture of death is not a bad term. A bit edgy but a true description of where we are today.]

But that is all past. Will we have the Church of renewal that the Popes lately promised is just around the corner? Difficult to say. We need some basis for such an event to emerge. Unfortunately, the Fathers of Vatican 2 failed to hand Catholics the right means: truly revolutionary but orthodox ideas of the Christian gospel with which to evangelize in the secular sphere.

What did we get instead? Well, we got warmed over liberalism and theology adulterated with Marxist liberation/salvation notions. The Council was so timorous or deliberately negligent that it even failed to condemn the treatment of Catholics behind the Iron Curtain who were enduring daily persecution for their faith.

Contrast the history of Trent, Vatican 1, and Vatican 2. You will find that Trent and V-1 strove to enable Catholics to make a determined stand in the public square in defense of gospel values. The Fathers of Vatican 2 failed to accomplish this. In fact, they issued verbose documents that watered down the Catholic arguments by making their statements about key articles of faith ambiguous. [We looked at what they wrote and got confused by what was written. So most of us kept quiet or worse joined the wreckers of the Church. If its not that important to be Catholic why bother?]

The Spirit of Vatican 2 has overwhelmed the Council documents anyway. Many still refuse to accept that this Spirit is the Spirit of modernity. Oil and water do not mix. Neither do the Gospel and Das Kapital. Time to seriously rethink the Council! Admission of error is the first step on the road to renewal.

John Nolan said...


It was not permission to chant the Propers that was granted in 1958 - this was established practice in the sung Mass. It was permission, in a Low Mass, to recite the Introit, Gradual, Offertory and Communion along with the priest, although it recommended that only advanced groups with adequate training should attempt this. The other innovation in 1958 was for the congregation to recite the entire Pater Noster with the priest, including the final Amen which was to be said aloud (this permission did not apply to a sung Mass).

Permission for the congregation to join in the server's responses (Missa dialogata) had been granted in 1923 and the Missa recitata, where the people also joined the priest in the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus and Agnus Dei was allowed, subject to the approval of the local ordinary, in 1935.

Whether the Tridentine Low Mass could realistically support this level of participation is a moot point, which is why it was not universally taken up - the prayers at the foot of the altar, for instance, were never intended to be a dialogue between priest and people (and in a sung Mass cannot be so).

Therefore the replacement of the PATFOTA with a dialogue, the use of the vernacular, the Liturgy of the Word facing the people, and forward altars were a logical development. The Council Fathers thought that they had approved a measured reform with enough built-in safeguards to preserve the integrity of the Roman Rite. According to Cardinal Heenan, if they had thought that they were voting for the abolition of the Latin Mass and its replacement with an ad hoc vernacular liturgy, they would never have passed Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Joseph Johnson said...

If only Bishop Athanasius Schneider (an early "post-Vatican II" guy, born 1961, like me) could become Pope! I pray for the day!

rcg said...

JJOHNSON, I second your opinion. When I read what John wrote that my heart fluttered.

Henry said...

"According to Cardinal Heenan, if they had thought that they were voting for the abolition of the Latin Mass and its replacement with an ad hoc vernacular liturgy, they would never have passed Sacrosanctum Concilium."

Which reminds of the story that one lone bishop arose at Vatican II to warn that if SC were adopted, the result would ultimately be that Holy Mass would be celebrated wholly in the vernacular. At this, St. Peter's Basilica erupted in uproarious laughter among the other two thousand bishops, so outlandish and alarmist did such a prediction seem to them, none of whom could take seriously the idea of such a preposterous thing (much less, have any such intention).