What did the Second Vatican Council do for us?

TCR News ^ | Current | Fr. Ian Ker

[NYer]

Forty years on, we are only just beginning to understand the significance of the
Council, says Fr Ian Ker. And we are still a long way from implementing it

It is 40 years since the opening of the Second Vatican Council. The Council was convoked by Pope John XXIII for two purposes: the renewal or aggiornamento of the Catholic Church and Christian reunion - two goals which are surely integrally related. The Pope expressed the hope that it would be the beginning of a new Pentecost for the Church.

There have, indeed, been substantial achievements. A nineteenth century Catholic would be amazed at the transformation of the papacy. Pius IX, who denounced democracy and progress and who had to be defended against his own subjects in the papal states by foreign mercenaries, would have been surprised at the thought of one of his successors travelling round the world and upholding human rights and justice. In Catholic countries, where formerly the Church was ready to turn a blind eye to political abuses in return for a guarantee of its privileges and rights, the Church is, or is expected to be, at the forefront of protest against the infringement of people's freedoms and rights. Similarly, what was once a fortress Church is now seriously engaged in dialogue with non-Christian religions as well as other Christian bodies. Internally, too, there have been significant reforms in a number of areas. There is a new code of canon law. New instruments of collegiality and subsidiarity have been put into place. No one would now say, as a famous English monsignore of the nineteenth century asserted, that the province of the laity was to hunt, shoot, and to fish. The vernacular has been introduced into the Mass and the other sacraments and few would wish to return to a wholly Latin rite.

However, inevitably there have been problems and distortions. The pursuit of justice and peace has sometimes seemed to supersede the preaching of the Gospel. The Council's teaching on the role of the laity has, paradoxically, led to a certain clericalisation of the laity, and bishops have often given the impression that the way to implement the decree on the laity is to build up as large a bureaucracy as possible and set up innumerable committees and commissions. Indeed, at times it seems that human organisation has made the Spirit redundant. This has also affected the search for Christian unity, which is not always best served by proliferating ecumenical structures. There too there have been serious aberrations which, to use the old pre-Vatican II word, can only be termed as encouraging indifferentism. In spite of the Council's call for a renewal of the rite of reconciliation, the practice of confession has catastrophically declined; some claim that the answer is general absolution, but sacraments are personal not collective. Finally, and most serious from the point of view of the ordinary Catholic, the English vernacular translations have proved less than satisfactory in their banality and infidelity to the Latin original.

It will take time to get the right balance; there were bound to be exaggerations and misinterpretations. In reaction to the Protestant reformation, Trent had emphasised those doctrines that were under attack, which led to the inevitable neglect of those other Catholic doctrines, like the priesthood of all believers, that the Reformers were stressing. That has also happened in the wake of Vatican II. As Cardinal John Henry Newman remarked, one council does one thing and another another. Moreover, what councils don't say is also significant. Thus evangelisation was not a theme of the Council, with the inevitable unfortunate consequences - that is, until Paul VI's Evangelii Nuntiandi (1974) moved the Church in a new direction.

Few would say it has been a very Pentecostal time. For many, it has seemed more like a Golgotha, with falling Mass attendances and declining vocations, at least in most of the developed world. For others, it has been like a blighted spring, in which high hopes have been dashed by the failure to pursue the progressive agenda.

As a student of Newman, who is often referred to as the "father of the Second Vatican Council", I take comfort from his reflections at the time of the First Vatican Council. There are several points he makes which are I think very relevant to our own post-conciliar situation. First, he warned that patience is called for as time finds remedies for what seem insuperable problems. Second, he pointed out that time is also needed for the implementation of conciliar teachings. There are two reasons for this. In the first place, implementation requires interpretation: texts do not speak for themselves, they have to be read and digested and elucidated.

There was an idea immediately after the Council that bishops could simply return to their dioceses and implement the Council. That was a very simplistic idea. Some obvious changes or reforms can be implemented in this way, others take time and involve a number of different parties. Certainly, authority is involved through the pope and bishops: John Paul II has more than played his part in this, as have other charismatic bishops like Cardinal Lustiger of Paris with his radical reform of the seminary system. But it is not only the magisterium that is involved. Other parts of the Church also have a responsibility for the realisation of Vatican II. Theologians have their role to play as exegetes of the conciliar texts, which have to be understood in relation to the tradition of the Church and to previous councils and magisterial teachings. The grassroots faithful baptised, whether priests or religious or laity, also take part in the process of the reception of a council. And last, but by no means least, those endowed with special charisms - and these charisms are given for the needs of the Church, not least at the time of a council. Thus the Ignatian charism was providential for the implementation of the Council of Trent, since without the Society of Jesus it is hard to see how the Tridentine reforms could ever been carried out.

There is a further clue to be found in Newman's writings about how the post-conciliar Church is likely to develop. At the beginning of his most famous theological work, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine , he says that it is not true of a religious idea or belief that "the stream is clearest near the spring". On the contrary, it

"is more equable, and purer, and stronger, when its bed has become deep, and broad, and full. It necessarily rises out of an existing state of things, and for a time savours of the soil. Its vital element needs disengaging from what is foreign and temporary..."

If we can apply this to the teachings of Vatican II, then we have to conclude that the meaning of the Council will become clearer in the course of time and that even those who participated in it are less likely to understand its full significance than later generations. If we are too close to something, we may not see it as it really is. And Newman's expression "savours of the soil" reminds us that the soil out of which the Council came was the sixties and that "its vital element needs disengaging from what is foreign and temporary". I believe that what is called "the spirit of Vatican II" is precisely that interpretation of the Council which savours of the Sixties, and until its "vital element" is disengaged from what is essentially "foreign and temporary" the Council will not bear the fruit it was intended to.

I remember a newspaper article by Bishop BC Butler in the Seventies to the effect that Vatican II could not be implemented until the older generation that was too set in its ways to really accept the Council had passed away. I am sure that was true, but it is also true of the generations that came to maturity in the Sixties and Seventies and who experienced the Council as though it were a revolution rather than simply another development in the Church's history and tradition. Until all those who saw or see Vatican II as a complete break with the Church's past have disappeared from the scene the Council will continue to be misunderstood.

Finally, as Pope John Paul II has said, one of the most important achievements of the Council was the rediscovery of the charismatic dimension of the Church. The Pope also sees the new ecclesial movements and communities as being an answer to Pope John's dream of a new Pentecost. This unexpected phenomenon was not planned or predicted by Vatican II, but nevertheless it represents a concrete realisation of the Council's Constitution on the Church, at the heart of which is the idea of communion between all the baptised whatever their state in the Church, whether clerical or religious or lay. That is why the new communities and movements are ecclesial and not lay as they are often called. It is interesting how those who claim to have "the spirit of Vatican II" are the very people in the Church who most dislike this great charismatic outburst, and who even ludicrously try to argue that it is "against Vatican II".

This article first appeared in the 11th October 2002 issue of
The Catholic Herald. Copyright © 2002 Fr. Ian Ker, Oxford. All Rights Reserved

[NYer]

While I may be a glutton for punishment for posting this thread, and I fully expect the contentious wrath of other posters to this forum, this article sheds light on some of the positive outcomes. Though hope springs eternal, my tin foil hat is in place.

[NYer]

I believe that what is called "the spirit of Vatican II" is precisely that interpretation of the Council which savours of the Sixties, and until its "vital element" is disengaged from what is essentially "foreign and temporary" the Council will not bear the fruit it was intended to.

It will take time but it will occur. Some of that "fruit" will come from the converts to the faith.

[Salvation]

**my tin foil hat is in place.**

Is you flame suit on also? LOL!!

[RobbyS]

Until all those who saw or see Vatican II as a complete break with the Church's past have disappeared from the scene the Council will continue to be misunderstood.

That means another thirty years. In the meanwhile, the stream remains murky and turbulent.

[NYer]

Is you flame suit on also?

Of course ... the latest model!

[NYer]

In the meanwhile, the stream remains murky and turbulent.

A good analogy.

[Maximilian]

I'm still waiting for an answer to the question in the title. The author says there were "achievements," then he lists
1. The transformation of the papacy (is this a good thing?)
2. The Church joining the liberal political revolution (is this a good thing?)
3. Ecumenical dialogue (is this a good thing?)

I would expect that he could find at least 1 thing that everyone could agree was something good that Vatican II brought us. Even Mussolini made the trains run on time. Even the Communist revolution in Russia increased tractor production. Can't he find even 1 comparable item?

Regarding point 2, in which the author praises the abandonment of officially Catholic countries, and the new position by the Church of supporting revolution, one should read the article on Columbia by Michael Rose in Catholic World Report. He graphically describes the "progress" achieved by a country which dropped article 1 from its constitution ("Columbia is a Catholic country") and which is now racked by violence, reduced to virtual chaos, there is no real government, and even the Church is reduced to helplessness as bishops are kidnapped and assassinated.

If this is the best the author can do in terms of finding "achievements" of Vatican II, then one would hate to see the "failures."

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Until all those who saw or see Vatican II as a complete break with the Church's past have disappeared from the scene the Council will continue to be misunderstood.

In other words, wait for traditionalists to die off. This sentence is incredibly frightening in its implications. Fortunately, it will not come to pass. The traditionalist movement is rapidly gaining ground among the younger generations. The exact opposite is set to happen.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

I remember a newspaper article by Bishop BC Butler in the Seventies to the effect that Vatican II could not be implemented until the older generation that was too set in its ways to really accept the Council had passed away. I am sure that was true, but it is also true of the generations that came to maturity in the Sixties and Seventies and who experienced the Council as though it were a revolution rather than simply another development in the Church's history and tradition. Until all those who saw or see Vatican II as a complete break with the Church's past have disappeared from the scene the Council will continue to be misunderstood.

You must see this.

[sinkspur]

The traditionalist movement is rapidly gaining ground among the younger generations.

Where are your statistics to back this up?

This is wishful thinking, Deborah.

Bishops should insist on the implementation of the new GIRM and extend the availability of the Tridentine Mass. Allow choices.

Don't think that FR is not reflective of the Church at large.

[sinkspur]

Until all those who saw or see Vatican II as a complete break with the Church's past have disappeared from the scene the Council will continue to be misunderstood.

The traditional movement is tiny, and the radicals who insist on tinkering with the Mass are reaching old age.

I know I'll likely be dead when John XXIII's vision reaches reality, but it is inevitable.

[St.Chuck]

1. The transformation of the papacy (is this a good thing?)

Yes

2. The Church joining the liberal political revolution (is this a good thing?

It should be expected when the people of the church are subjected to the liberal education system and the liberal culture.

3. Ecumenical dialogue (is this a good thing?)

Yes

[ultima ratio]

"Forty years on, we are only just beginning to understand the significance of the Council, says Fr Ian Ker."

Whose fault is that? Had the Council used clear and unambiguous language, it would have been readily understood. What it has become is a Rorschach test: those in power see what they want to see in it, then impose their views on the rest of us. The truth is, it is not the big deal it has been made out to be; it is a failed council that has resulted in a lot of damage to the Church because it hadn't even the courage of its own Catholic convictions. It deserves to be forgotten as quickly as possible.

[ultima ratio]

Most of the families who are traditional are young--and large. It is not true that traditionalism is comprised of old people nostalgic for the past. It is the young who are attracted--including young clergy who dare not admit the truth for fear of their ordinaries. The bell is tolling.

[old and tired]

**Until all those who saw or see Vatican II as a complete break with the Church's past have disappeared from the scene the Council will continue to be misunderstood.**

**In other words, wait for traditionalists to die off.**

I read that sentence very differently. I think its talking about all the liberal abusers (like the crazy theology professors). You know - all the folks who think Vatican II means holding hands at the Our Father and 10 minute hugfests at the sign of peace.

[ultima ratio]

Is this why this Pope can't find it in himself to discipline apostate bishops?

Dialogue--endless, pointless, going nowhere. It's the Rodney King school of Catholicism--"Can't we all just get along and forget about the deposit of faith?"

[ultima ratio]

What did Vatican II do for us?

Made the Church a Fun House, full of distorting mirrors. Placed truth on top of quicksand. Gave us the clown Mass. Introduced no-fault confessions.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

It's the Rodney King school of Catholicism--"Can't we all just get along and forget about the deposit of faith?"

LOL

[RobbyS]

The progressives as much the sedevacanists think of Vatican II as a revolution. They, of course, are the more dangerous, because the world is on their side.

[old and tired]

**It is the young who are attracted--including young clergy who dare not admit the truth for fear of their ordinaries. The bell is tolling. **

I think many of the kids today are reacting to extremely poor catechesis. The traditionalist movement gives them absolutes they can cling to. The traditionalist movement probably is more popular and better organized than at any time since Vatican II, but I really believe it's a reaction to the rampant abuses.

None of our eight adult children are involved in the traditionalist movement, but then my wife made sure they were well catechized, no matter how ignorant their religion teachers.

[St.Chuck]

Dialogue--endless, pointless, going nowhere. It's the Rodney King school of Catholicism--"Can't we all just get along and forget about the deposit of faith?"

You create a false dichotomy. We can all get along and retain the deposit of faith.

[sydney smith]

I agree U.R. The indult Mass I attend is full of young families while the N.O. parish of my kids' school looks like recreation hour at the nursing home on Sunday mornings.

[ultima ratio]

Fine--so why is the dialoguing still going on after forty years? Nobody's changing anybody's mind--unless it's the Vatican's. So far the Jews have won every discussion. So too have the Lutherans. We keep bending over backwards, apologizing for everything except the state of Michael Jackson's nose--without making a smidgin of progress. Meanwhile the missions have collapsed, statistics are way down and things look lousy. The media and the world--is more hostile now than before all this wonderful Vatican II dialoguing began. Hell, we even substituted a Catholic Mass for a Protestant one--to no avail.

[sinkspur]

The indult Mass I attend is full of young families while the N.O. parish of my kids' school looks like recreation hour at the nursing home on Sunday mornings.

No doubt an exaggeration in both directions.

[ultima ratio]

I am neither--and I think Vatican II was the opening salvo of a revolution to destroy Catholicism. If you don't think so, you are living in a dream world. For a pope to elevate to the cardinalate a prelate who has openly questioned the historicity of the Resurrection is a revolution. For a Mass to have been imposed which reflects a Protestantized Paschal Meal theology rather than the Catholic perspective of the Council of Trent, is a revolution. For three-quarters of the faithful to disbelieve in the Real Presence and to practice abortion and contraception with the same frequency as their secular counterparts, is a revolution. Wake up and smell the coffee.

[RobbyS]

Bad things in ascending or descending order? You think it all began with Vatican II. If your concern is modernism, was that movement not well underway by 1789? Could it be that at least 75% of the French bourgeoisie, nobility and clergy did not, in 1789, believe in the Real Presence. Maybe that is why the Revolution quickly became a war against the Church, when the unbelieving elite suddenly realized that a substantial part of the French nation really DID believe in "all that."

[NYer]

I know I'll likely be dead when John XXIII's vision reaches reality, but it is inevitable.

I suspect that is true for all of us in this forum, but here is a glimpse of it.

[ultima ratio]

Do I think "it" all began with Vatican II? Yes--if you mean the revolution within the Church. It is unprecedented that the leadership in the Church should reject its own Tradition--which is contrary to the nature of Catholicism itself. As for 1789--yes, it's the same modernist arrogance and psychology--only now the Church-wrecking is from the INSIDE, by order of the top echelon. This is why I think Lefebvre was justified in his disobedience. This Pope was in league with the enemies of Tradition--knowingly or not.

[livius]

It didn't begin with VatII, and had definitely been going on for a long time before then (well, probably for almost 2000 years). However, VII threw open the gates and let it in.

The Church did indeed need to be more open, in the sense of evangelical, and move beyond its traditional populations. The liturgy had gotten very sloppy and did need to be restored. However, these things were already on-going in a legitimate way, which would have been productive, had everything not been derailed by VatII.

Someone on another thread made a brilliant suggestion, which seems more and more apt to me as I think about it: The Church was fighting against modernism, which was an essentially intellectual heresy of the type that has always bubbled along under things. But what really let modernism win was its alliance with the psychological movement, which the Church did not understand in the least.

Freudiansim displaced Christianity, but the Church was fighting a different war. When the "sexual revolution" (essentially, Freud and his bizarre theories elevated to life truths and vital beliefs) swept through, the Church was unprepared and unable to deal with this.

And, as we all know, we are still struggling with its fallout.

[RobbyS]

Hardly unprecedented if you are familiar with the course of events in France, which, you must remember stood as large in Europe then as its vanity would have us believe it is today. But was it any better is the other Catholic powers? Austria? Spain? Infidelity was sweeping all before it, until the Church was humbled so that in 1800 one might have through that "all that," would soon cease to blight Europe. And many prelates and priests took part in this deconstruction.

[ultima ratio]

I don't buy this analysis. The Church before Vatican II was flourishing--and was in a period of unprecedented growth. It fanned out to every continent in the missions--which were far-flung--Japan, Africa, India. There were more converts from Protestantism and Judaism BEFORE we got lovey-dovey with other faiths, than AFTER we got so chummy. Right now the missions are absolutely defunct. Conversions are drastically down, despite small upticks recently. Baptisms are way down. Mass attendance is a shadow of what it was.

As for the Church being more open now--please don't make me laugh. Have you ever tried to get a straight answer from an American bishop after lodging a complaint? How about Rome's response to the present scandals? Do you think it's being more open? Most of the scandalous coverups have happened AFTER Vatican II, not before it. Had Pius XII been in power, heads would have rolled long before now.

As for Freud--baloney. The sexual revolution was the result of a breakdown in the Church's own immunal system--and only picked up steam AFTER Vatican II which catered to it. When was the last time you heard a sermon about good old-fashioned sin? Or Hell fire? Now everybody's theoretically saved. Nobody says so outright--but it's implied. Right now EVERYBODY receives communion--whether you're shacking up, whether you approve of abortion, whether you're making out with boys. Sacrilege is shrugged off because faith itself is infinitely weaker.

Let's not forget it was during the wishy-washy reign of the liberal Paul VI that everything hit the fan. What we needed was a disciplinarian--not a Hamlet who tolerated open dissent and only wrung his hands. Nor has this Papacy been much better. It caters to the young--as if youth itself were anything other than a stage of immaturity in desperate need of stronger moral guidance--which has yet to come from youth rallies. It comes from better catechesis by better-prepared priests and holier bishops--something this Pope has neglected to give the younger generation.

So I reject your contentions. They are excuses. We should never have left our moorings in Catholic tradition. But we did--and we're stuck with the consequences.

[ultima ratio]

Even in its darkest days the Church never turned its back on its own Tradition. On other churchmen, yes, on secular power, yes--but never on its own faith. The only analogy I can think of would be the Arian crisis.

[sinkspur]

You got broadsided by the Tradmaster in #31. Big time.

Since he's on ignore from me, tell him that his whining is tiresome, that his attacks on JPII are the same old-same old, and that his bishop Williamson wouldn't survive the scrutiny of his Nazi memorabilia, if anybody gave a damn about Williamson's personal idiosyncracies.

If you post to UR, you are, eventually, going to get kicked in the teeth.

If we could all ignore him, he would eventually be reduced to mentally masturbating with his schismatic cohorts.

A delicious twist, that.

[RobbyS]

Maybe it is time to ask the question: How could such a flourishing Church lose the support of so many German-speaking Catholics to the vile Nazi movement? Criticisms of Pius XII fail to take into account that he knew he could not command the obedience of Bavaria and Austria, and maybe not the Rheinland. The real "pope" in the Reich was Adolph Hitler.

[RobbyS]

Who is the Church? I think it is safe to say that the French clergy was apostate until it was purged by the Jacobins and Napoleon.

[ultima ratio]

This is bull. Pius XII became pope when the war broke out, long after Hitler had already ascended to power. Do you think Hitler paraded his evil intentions right away? By the time Nazism showed its true face, the people of Germany were powerless to make changes. But the German bishops spoke out. So did Pius XII--both in '42 and '43--forcefully, something conveniently overlooked by revisionists interested only in blighting his memory.

[RobbyS]

Do you really think that Hitler masked his intentions? Any Catholic who wanted to know what they were had only to read Mein Kampf, a book that was readily available to any German with a few marks. And he certainly didn't take long to eliminate any priests who might have opposed him.He packed Dachau with them. The Concordat was a desperate effort to come to terms with someone they knew who was at least as bad as Mussolini. What he did with the Catholics schools and Catholic youth showed how well he could be trusted. But it was not only fear that compelled Catholics to co-operate. Many of them abandoned Christ to worship at Hitler's altar.

[ultima ratio]

What you say is true--but even Mein Kampf talks only of deportations. Not mass murder. Hitler built the Autobahn and thumbed his nose at the French and British--which made him popular. It's also true that after a while they bought into the propaganda--Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of Will shows this, how they looked on him with adoration. He led them on the road to Hell step by step, each one more terrible than the one before. Over 700,000 German soldiers perished on the Russian front alone. But I don't blame the Church for the failures of German Catholics. Heroes are rare in any age--and it would have taken heroic sanctity to buck Hitler if you were an ordinary German. Those were dark days--too dark for us to imagine, we who thought it was catastrophic when 250 of our marines perished in Beirut.

[tiki]

I am neither--and I think Vatican II was the opening salvo of a revolution to destroy Catholicism.

Only if the Catholic Church was bogus to begin with. "The gates of hell..."

[ultima ratio]

"There was much going on in the world outside the Church that influenced the Church--"

No fooling? There's ALWAYS much going on in the world that influences the Church. Two massive world wars, for instance--but still the Church held onto the Sacred Tradition of its forefathers. The Roman Empire collapsed and it held on. The French Revolution swept away the thrones of Europe and it held on. But Vatican II gave the liberals their one and only chance--and they took it.

[ultima ratio]

Stash the "gates of Hell" argument. Sure, the Church will prevail--but millions of souls might perish before it does.

[ultima ratio]

Is this the best you can do by way of rebuttal? Disappointing--especially dragging up poor Williamson who's off somewhere in Argentina. Pathetic.

[saradippity]

Well some of the converts may be wonderful,faithfilled,well informed,real Catholics. However,our interim archb. just appointed one to be his spokesperson and the only thing she has said thus far is that the scandal is a celibacy issue. I could just spit.

[Saint Athanasius]

I wish some people would realize that the problem is not Vatican II-

Blaming Vatican II for Modernism is like blaming Nicea for Arianism.

Both tried to engage and defeat the errors of the time... both had dissent bishops in the process... both had many problems afterwards... as Saint Jerome points out.

The Church will prevail.... it always has, it always will... it will just take time to Build the Civilization of Love... but it will happen... East and West Christianity will once more join to breathe with two lungs... we just need patience, hope, and prayer

So pray your Rosary!
As St. Pio says "Pray, hope, and don't worry!"

[NYer]

The Church will prevail.... it always has, it always will... it will just take time to Build the Civilization of Love... but it will happen... East and West Christianity will once more join to breathe with two lungs... we just need patience, hope, and prayer

As we watch the ECUSA teeter on the brink of division, my heart goes out to the devout congregants as they watch the takeover of their church by GLBTs. Where did it all begin? From what I have read, it all started when they embraced contraception. Next came ordination of women and now, the election of a divorced father of two, living in an openly gay relationship with his partner of 13 years, as bishop. Today the final vote should come down and a multitude of God fearing christians will find themselves caught between their church and God's teachings.

As you have pointed out, the catholic church has defied popular conventions and maintained a steady course. When Humanae Vitae was written, many catholics left the church because it "failed to progress". In retrospect, Paul Vi's encyclical could be called prophetic.

It is almost laughable to be having this NO/Tridentine discourse, in face of the worldwide crisis now confronting the Anglican/Episcopalian church. One Anglican minister in this forum posted a thread on negotiations underway between the faithful Anglican remnant and Rome.

So pray your Rosary!

For us and our Anglican/Episcopalian brethren as they watch their ship split apart.

[sydney smith]

"If we could all ignore him...

Why would you want to 'ignore' him and why would you encourage others to ignore UR? He doesn't seem to be an uncharitable chap. On the contrary, he doesn't seem to have the pent-up hostility that you have towards Catholics on the other side of the aisle.

[livius]

I think you misunderstood me, UR. I'm not making excuses for VatII or for modernism - I'm just pointing out that modernism didn't suddenly appear in the 1960s and take over, but has always been trying to take over the Church. Arianism was the modernism of its day, for example. And don't forget, there was only one bishop who opposed Arianism, which almost destroyed orthodox Christianity when it swept through (and in fact created the conditions for the birth of Islam).

The sexual revolution was not the fault of the Church; it had been growing in secular circles since the beginning of the 20th century and the development of the new religion of Freudianism. Failing to provide clear guidance, however, was the fault of the Church. And I think this came about because the pre-VatII Church was looking in the wrong direction, expecting the challenge to be a purely intellectual one that could be defeated by a revival of Thomism, for example, when it was actually one that had popular social appeal and was anything but intellectual.

I don't think VatII created this, but I do think that VatII simply decided to accept anything that went on in secular society as being the norm, and the Church simply withdrew from the battle. And of course, we all know about the internal corruption that was permitted to grow within the Church itself as a result of this.

As for openness, in this country at least, in many areas the Church had a somewhat immigrant cast. People came from traditionally Catholic groups, and aside from efforts such as those of the Paulists (who had themselves been charged with modernism for using Protestant techniques such as street-preaching to attract converts from populations that were not traditionally Catholic), there was sometimes a failure of imagination in getting the message out into the big world. Of course, most of the Paulists now are borderline or completely heterodox, and most programs that are aimed at converts are also nearly heretical, at best.

I had a friend who went to an RCIA program led by a late middle-aged nun who spent the classes making them hold hands and gaze into a candle flame while chanting some Buddhist thing. When the prospective converts (who knew more than Sister) asked about doctrine, they were told not to bother, because the Church didn't really care about "that stuff" anymore. And my friend was told she had to complete this program in order to be received (fortunately, she found an orthodox priest who instructed her privately and received her privately). It's a wonder anyone can actually become a Catholic anymore.

I agree with you that things were flourishing before VatII, because, as I said earlier, there were quiet and effective reforms that were already going on. There was an active and orthodox liturgical movement, for example, dedicated to making Father quit rushing through the Mass in one long hiss (I'm sure many of us remember this!). And there were groups - such as the formerly orthodox Paulists - reaching out to non-Catholics in this country, and many missionaries abroad.

My point was that VatII didn't create new doctrines. But it was even more dangerous in that it TACITLY decided that true wisdom was to be found in the secular world, and not in Catholic tradition. And by simultaneously destroying Catholic liturgy and traditional devotional practice, it left the Church defenseless against the world. John XXIII (who always gets off scot-free in these discussions, although Paul VI just inherited what he had started) said he wanted to "open the windows." Well, he certainly did, and it was obvious that he didn't think in advance about what was going to rush in through them. Or that this was perhaps exactly what he - or at least some of the people surrounding him - actually wanted to happen.

[Maximilian]

Blaming Vatican II for Modernism is like blaming Nicea for Arianism.

This is such a staggering misconception that it's difficult even to respond.

Both tried to engage and defeat the errors of the time...

This one point shows how misconceived this comparison is. Vatican II specifically claimed that it would NOT "engage and defeat the errors of the time." The council would not even mention the word "Communism" at any point, to take just one example. Pope John XXIII criticized directly any bishops who wanted to make condemnations of errors. Your statement could not be more diametrically contradictory to the stated purpose of Vatican II.

it will just take time to Build the Civilization of Love...

As St. Augustine pointed out 1600 years ago, this is never going to happen here on Earth. And any attempts to create utopia here on Earth are bound to be counterproductive. Until the second coming, the "City of God" exists only in the hearts of men who are living lives of grace, have given up all attachment to sin, and live instead for the love of God. The greatest theologian of the 20th century, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, predicted that Vatican II was likely to achieve precisely the opposite results, and he has been proven correct.