Tuesday, September 22, 2020


Statistics don't lie:

  • The Archdiocese of Freiburg is in the process of consolidating 1,057 parishes into 40.
  • The Archdiocese of Utrecht, which had 355 parishes in 1965 and is down to 280 today, is cutting down to only 20 over the coming decade.
  • The Diocese of Trier — the oldest in Germany — is consolidating 905 parishes into 35.
  • The Diocese of Essen has reduced its parish count from 259 to 43.
  • The Archdiocese of Luxembourg has reduced its parish count from 274 to 33.
  • The Archdiocese of Berlin is reducing its parish count from 105 to 30 by 2020.
Read the full article:

The liturgy should move the faithful away from the world, not secularize the Church

If the Church is supposed to withdraw from the world, then her liturgy must do the same, pointing us to heavenly realities that abide forever.


Tito Edwards said...

Hi Fr. McDonald,

I enjoy reading your blog daily!

In the title of this post you wrote "Epiracle"?

Did you mean empirical?

Have a blessed day & keep up the great witness to our beautiful faith!

In Jesus, Mary, & Joseph,

Tito Edwards

Council Fatigue said...

No kidding.

Father, no matter what is said, there will be people who insist that the Council was the work of God and that is was "holy", "orthodox", etc.... But the proof is in what it has brought us, which is failure on an epic scale.

There is overwhelming evidence that Vatican II was sabotaged by bad players. There is overwhelming evidence that it operated at the behest of a surreptititous shadow council that set the disastrous path we are on.

This was not your "usual council" and the usual rules just don't apply. There was too much at work to sabotage it in the first place.

It's probably going to take at least one more generation removed from and uninvested in this fiasco before we finally get Church leaders with enough courage to acknowledge this horrible calamity. Meanwhile, we continue to play at trying to force orthodoxy into a compromised institution that is being run by a "parallel church" within. It is VERY frustrating, but where else can we go?

Ignatius said...

This is an exercise in "post hoc, ergo propter hoc."
A little history is useful here.
Vatican II occurred because the Church's power and influence had been in decline for more than a century, since the Enlightenment. The Church was largely disconnected from Europe's governments and from worldly power, with a few notable exceptions -- Franco's Spain was one. World War II and the nuclear age has shaken faith around the world -- particularly in Europe. The great colonial empires that sent the Church around the world, were collapsing.
John XXIII wanted to get the Church back in the game; maybe it was too little too late. But V-II never would have happened if the Church wasn't already seeing signs of trouble. In the middle of the 20th century, the Church was perceived as remote, archaic and unfriendly to most of the world's peoples.
Clearly V-II didn't stop the decline, but I don't think you can prove that it caused it. In several countries, like USA and Ireland, the abuse scandals have been a much bigger factor.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I think Vatican II was needed from the European perspective. What we got, though, in terms of the ambiguities of its conclusions and documents is precisely ambiguities and confusion, chaos to be exact. Not only did it exacerbate the problems the Church was having in Europe, it created completely new problems for the Church in the USA which was in a golden era after WWII. It created even more problems for the Church in South America. Apart from the growing Church in Africa, Vatican II created even more problems for the Church.

The only salvation for Vatican II was enunciated by Pope Benedict, reform or renewal in continuity and without rupture from the pre-Vatican II Church. Pope Benedict realized it all hinged on the renewal of the liturgy in continuity with what preceded and thus we have the EF Mass celebrated today to enact a major change in the OF to make it more like the EF. That will happen eventually for the small number of priests and parishes left standing after this debacle of major/epoch proportions.

Anonymous said...


You are a one trick pony. We have heard the alibis and excuses from you a myriad of times. In the US at least, the Church was at the height of its power, influence, and outreach on the eve of the Council

Council Fatigue said...

Father, as tempting as it is to agree with you, I can't.

The whole "Hermeneutic of Continuity" or "Reform in Continuity" is an oxymoron.

Quo Primum made it pretty clear what was to be reformed. If any priest is actually saying the black and doing the red, then he is tampering with the liturgy or, as some like to say, causing "organic growth".

I DO agree that there will be change when this debacle is finally over with, but I don't believe it will be the Benedict XVI sellout to the Consilium of the 60's. The bishops KNOW what happens in parish when the EF is unleashed and they deliberately choose to discourage it and suppress it anyway. That is just plain wrong. Renewal is easier and close than they would have us believe, but they refuse to let us have it, so they can keep enjoying their "new springtime" of Catholic decline--oh yes, let us not forget: The Council mandates it!

All kneel before the Council! The Superdogma reigns supreme!


Anonymous said...

Meant to say that if he is saying the black and doing the red he is NOT tampering with the liturgy.

If he is "intiating" this "organic growth" than he is doing more than saying the black and doing the red.

They can't have it both ways.

Anonymous said...

As a man who was born and raised in the "Roman Catholic" Rhineland in the city of Cologne just after World War II I can tell you the Catholic Churches were packed and our stunning Cathedral yes it was damaged by Allied bombing but we still attended Holy Mass there. And right after the Second Vatican Council ended so did Mass attendance and processions in our towns and cities, German Catholics started to lose their faith NOT gain faith as the Council stated would happen in the New Springtime. So please don't preach to me that Vatican II was a stunning success just look at my country of birth Germany, the Rhineland, Bavaria, both historically Roman Catholic empty churches, closed convents, closed schools, closed seminaries, however as I visited two years ago the MOSQUES were packed or praying in our streets in Cologne, they could not care less about anything and the police did nothing. As I stood there watching the Muslims pray in the streets in front of Cologne Cathedral it hit me that Germany is gone and within 50 or less years Germany will become a Muslim country just like France will and England. We Germans like the rest of ethnic Europeans DO NOT REPRODUCE hence Europe is over. So I say again don't tell me how Vatican II was a great success for it was not.

Tom Marcus said...

Anonymous in Germany, my heart goes out to you. We have lost so much in this "revolution in tiara and cope" and it has all been so terribly, cruelly, unnecessary. Keep the faith.

Anonymous said...

Where is the proof of causation? The author lists events that have happened post-Vatican II but provides no nexus between Vatican II and the events that occurred. Might there be even fewer diocese right now if Vatican II had never taken place? Or might the same decrease have occurred? The downward trend in church attendance started before Vatican II. To cite the above as "empirical" evidence without showing how one relates to the other makes no sense. Otherwise, one could just as easily blame Vatican II for the assassination of Martin Luther King, Watergate, September 11, etc.

Ignatius said...

Post hoc ergo proper hoc!

Tom Marcus said...

It seems to me that our German brother is not offering the decline he has witnessed as "empirical evidence" so much as he is countering the claim that Vatican II was necessary from Europe.

With an event like this, "empirical" evidence is a bit hard to come by, but there can be no denying that the Church after the Council experienced a change--a rupture, if you will--that was abrupt and undeniably in the direction of decline.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

There are people still living who remember the implementation of Vatican II beginning in 1965 and how the Council disrupted the life the Church with droves of priests leaving the priesthood to marry or whatever as well as nuns, many marrying priests. And then the collapse of religious life for women. Then there was politically active clergy and religious further polarizing the Church and the chaos inflicted on the liturgy.

The authoritative and disciples Church collapsed overnight and because of the Council and it hasn’t recovered yet.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...


Pierre said...

Anonymous Ignatius said...
Post hoc ergo proper hoc!

You are still a one trick pony and wrong. Since you like to quote Latin phrases, do you occasionally celebrate Mass in Latin?

Anonymous said...

Father McDonald,

It is baffling that your brother priest who posts here simply will not acknowledge reality of the post Conciliar failures. There is really something wrong with him. Sad

jean- francois said...

V II didn't cause the decline. It was an attempt to stop the decline that had started in France from spreading all around the world. It failed to do so.

Anonymous said...

jean-francois k,

LOL. The US Church was vibrant and strong on the eve of the Council. So yes, Vatican II was the catalyst for the decline in the US. I also understand the Church was vibrant in most countries other than a few European countries like France, Germany and Italy. Peddling this false narrative is getting tiresome but it's the only thing you have to explain liberal failures

Jean-Francois said...

You Americans don't know anything. You cannot even make a little croissant properly.