THE NUNC DIMITTIS OF JOHN PAUL II

Catholic Dossier ^ | 2001 | Ralph McInerny

[american colleen]

Came across this article and liked it very much - I found it fair and balanced.

[american colleen]

Could one of you guys use your ping list if you think this article is worth it. Thanks a lot.

[Maximilian]

I'm pinging this at your request, colleen.

But here is another classic example of someone getting it totally wrong. How can a man who is one of the last of the true Thomists so thorough reject all reason and logic?

First he claims that "The ecumenical council called by Pope John XXIII is the central event in the recent history of the Catholic Church." Then he claims that it would be the post hoc ergo propter hoc error to conclude that there was any causal relationship between the unexpected and total collapse of the Catholic Church and what he calls "the central event in the recent history of the Catholic Church." Come on -- it was total coincidence? He wants to blame the "sexual revolution"? The Church was just a victim?

I went round and round with another poster the other day about this topic. Here we see it in action again from another one of the pope's apologists (the last one was Fr. Neuhaus). Vatican II happened. It was the biggest event to hit the Church for 400 years. The Church collapsed in virtually every area of spiritual life. These events have no causal relationship. And if you'll believe that story, then I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Neuhaus and McInerny are not stupid guys. What makes them say these things that any rational person would reject outright as preposterous? It's clear that they have an agenda, and they are willing to fudge the facts to defend it. They have a vested stake in defending the status quo, but it's rather like defending the captain of the Titanic. All the evidence is against you.

[Desdemona]

All Vatican II did was put a dent in the defenses of the church which were exploited for nefarious purposes. It started with good intentions, I think, but anytime guard is lowered, someone or something will try to take advantage. That's what happened.

Truthfully, the roots of the collapse were embedded in secular thinking not quite 200 years before Vatican II and it crept into "spiritual" life. Vatican II was just a catalyst. The council could not help that.

And, contrary to popular belief, Vatican II really didn't ruin much of anything doctrinally speaking. Those who sought change in the liiturgy used it as an excuse, and it is now beginning to be recognized that Vatican II never authorized the changes. Honest reporting does wonders.

[sinkspur]

Neuhaus and McInerny are not stupid guys.

No, they're not. But I'm beginning to wonder if you are.

The Church has GROWN since Vatican II. In most areas, like my own parish, you have to shoehorn people into the pews at almost every Mass.

You seem to think that Catholics, who spend 6 and 3/4 days per week NOT at a Catholic Church, aren't influenced by cultural trends.

It's a guaranteed certainty that, with or without Vatican II, the percentage of Catholics who attend Mass weekly would be EXACTLY where it is today.

[marshmallow]

I have similar feelings about the Crucifixion. Jesus' ministry was starting to blossom. He was cheered and saluted as he entered Jerusalem and hailed as the Messiah. Then it all collapsed. Suddenly and unexpectedly. From a hero he was transformed in no time into a villain. What went wrong? Well, we can look to the single most dramatic event of his ministry, which occurred just prior to the Crucifixion. That's right, I'm talking of the institution of the Holy Eucharist. Immediately after The Last Supper, they arrested Him. All was going well until this point. Then it all went to pieces. There's little doubt that these two events are connected. For sure, wasn't it this gathering that Judas walked out of? Yes, it was the last Supper that caused the Crucifixion. No sooner had he gone out into the Garden of Gethsemane than they came looking for him.You'd have to be blind to not see the connection.

Or then again, could it be that the Last Supper and its aftermath simply provided the ideal opportunity for Jesus' enemies to hatch what they had been planning for some time? Could it be that their evil had been incubating for years and they took their opportunity when the traitor saw an opportune moment? I wonder.

Clue: the sort of errors which have become rampant in the Church in the last 40 years were being condemned by Pius X at the turn of the 20th century, in his encyclical on modernism. This great Pope thought them to be of sufficient danger 60 years before VII to warrant a formal encyclical.

[tiki]

I would say that only God knows the cause and effect of VII. Truly, the magisterium convened VII and voted on the changes. Truly, many priests and bishops took it as a license to make whatever changes they wanted and truly, society changed extremely.

I'd have to watch the tape again but some visionary said that Mary said that Satan had 100 years to do his best and I think he's had it.

The license taken by Catholics in the name of VII and the results I see around me of Catholics who know their faith is just proof to me that Jesus words are true and the gates of hell haven't and never shall prevail against the Body of Christ on earth. The Church will emerge stronger and more filled with faith than ever. Jesus never said it would be easy but He is with us even until the end of the world and my faith in Jesus Christ and the Church he founded does not waver.

[Maximilian]

Yes, it was the last Supper that caused the Crucifixion.

For your metaphor to be appropriate, there should have been a Pentecost 40 days after Vatican II. And in fact for 40 years now, the liberals have been CLAIMING a new Pentecost. But where are the fruits of the Holy Spirit? We've been waiting 40 years now for them to show up.

By the time 40 years had passed after the Ressurection, Christianity had already been spread around the known world. The apostles had already testified to the presence of the Holy Spirit through their faith, through their miracles, through their testimony, through their martyrdoms. The Catholic Faith had been established on the firm foundation of the Apostles' Creed and the inspired teaching of St. Paul.

On the other hand, you might want to call Vatican II the anti-Pentecost. All of these fruits of the Spirit have disappeared. And trying to blame enemies outside the Church just won't wash when we see that the entire program was enacted by the Catholic bishops themselves. Nor should you be solaced by the decisive actions of Pope St. Pius X. He proved that proper use of hierarchical authority will destroy a heretical movement. If the post-Vatican II innovations are still with us, and still worse than ever (refer to today's thread on the CTA liturgy), then that is objective evidence of a failure of appropriate governance.

[marshmallow]

My metaphor depends on no knew Pentecost to be appropriate.

It is simply a paraphrase of your argument, with names and places changed, that because unprecedented Event A occurred in close temporal proximity to unprecedented Event B they must therefore be causally related.

I chose that particular metaphor because of its potent Christian symbolism. I could just as easily have chosen the juxtapostion of the election of George Bush and the occurence of 9/11..

[Hermann the Cherusker]

It started with good intentions

Bzzzztt!

A flawed assumption. Go back to Start.

I encourage you to read "The Undermining of the Catholic Church" by Mary Ball Martinez. It will explain the history behind the last one hundred years through the eyes of one who saw much of it first hand.

The planning for Vatican II and the abominable Liturgical changes started under Pope Pius XII. Pius XII is the one who "Novus Ordo'ed" Holy Week and the Calendar and the Psalter. These were the model for what was to follow.

Vatican II really didn't ruin much of anything doctrinally speaking

Many of us disagree with you on that point.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The Church has GROWN since Vatican II. In most areas, like my own parish, you have to shoehorn people into the pews at almost every Mass.

Only because the number of parishes constructed in the suburbs is a fraction of the empty or closed parishes in the cities. Sure it looks crowded when you force 10,000 families into one parish.

If you carefully peruse the Catholic Directory, you can see the mass apostasy before your eyes in the carefully laid out statistics. 1/4 of those Baptised never take First Communion, 1/4 of those taking First Communion are never Confirmed. Another 1/4 of those Confirmed never Marry within the Church. The Church is seen to be "growing" only by pretending that all these apostates are still Catholic and keeping them on the parish registers.

There has only been one true area of growth within the Church in the past 40 years - the number of Bishops has gone way up, even as the number of priests and faithful is way down.

You seem to think that Catholics, who spend 6 and 3/4 days per week NOT at a Catholic Church, aren't influenced by cultural trends.

"Behold I have overcome the world."

It's a guaranteed certainty that, with or without Vatican II, the percentage of Catholics who attend Mass weekly would be EXACTLY where it is today.

Really?

In 1962, over 75% of 48 million Catholics were at Mass every Sunday - 36 million.

In 2003, 25-33% of 60 million Catholics are at Mass every Sudnay - 15-20 million.

I wholeheartedly disagree with you.

[sinkspur]

I wholeheartedly disagree with you.

Of course you do, Hermann. And, if you were in charge, we'd still be praying for the "perfidious Jews" on Good Friday, and performing wedding ceremonies between Catholics and non-Catholics in the rectory.

[NYer]

First of all, kudos, Colleen on an excellent find! I not only enjoyed this article but bookmarked it as well.

As for your suggestion that the church has "collapsed" spiritually, I would beg to disagree. The post concilliar church has brought in some outstanding converts who have contributed MUCH to the spirituality of the church.

God acts in His own ways. To ridicule the Second Council is, in a sense, to challenge God's handiwork through His church.

[ninenot]

Max, it was I with whom you danced regarding your judgment that VatII is the cause of all ills---and there were others who shared my disbelief in your pat pronouncement.

As I recall, there was one open issue remaining, BTW: you were going to document the sources on which you have determined that 99% of American Catholics are going straight to hell on their death.

Since it was not difficult for you to prove that VatII was the cause of all the ills in the Church subsequent to 1965, I am rather surprised it's taking you so long to come up with the other items.

[american colleen]

As for your suggestion that the church has "collapsed" spiritually, I would beg to disagree.

I agree wid ya.

Thank you Jesus, I was sitting rather lethargically at Mass a few years ago - in a liberal, NO parish with a liberal NO priest and a nun/priestess wanna-be and I nearly keeled over when I heard that inner voice tell me to come back and that this is where I belonged. My entire body relaxed and I almost cried because I had so neglected Him for so long and I knew it - which I hadn't before that happened.

At the risk of sounding like one of the progressives (YIKES), we are the Church and change has to come through each one of us. Well, my entire life changed while sitting in a nondescript, NO parish.

[dsc]

"To ridicule the Second Council is, in a sense, to challenge God's handiwork through His church."

I suspect it may rather be to respond appropriately to Satan's attack on God's Church.

[american colleen]

I disagree with your (very well written and thought out as usual) points in #3. Wish I could think and write as well as you.

The entire article tells me one thing in particular. The culture of Catholic dissent has its roots way before Vatican II. It sprung from the giddy anticipation of the Catholic Theologians and some priests (prolly bishops, too) who were convinced that the birth control debate would go in their favor. When it didn't, those same Catholics ignored the pope/magisterium and basically told the laity that they could use their own consciences to decide what to do. Thing is, it only made sense to think "why stop there?"

I firmly believe with all my heart and soul that whether Vat II happened or not, attendance at Mass would be the same as we see today. We've succumbed to the secular culture.

[american colleen]

In 1962, over 75% of 48 million Catholics were at Mass every Sunday - 36 million.

In 2003, 25-33% of 60 million Catholics are at Mass every Sudnay - 15-20 million.

Bet ya the figures for mainline Protestant denoms are roughly the same, if not worse. And they didn't have no Vatican II!

[Notwithstanding]

You know, almost immediately after you posted on this thread, I broke wind.

Your post must have been the cause of my gas.