Didn't Vatican II Make Enough Of A Mess Already?

Mr. Jorge Bergoglio, aka "Pope" Francis, has been working the crowd at World Jailbait, er, I mean YOUTH Day!! The usual Modernist claptrap was accompanied by this interesting remark, "I want to tell you something. What is it that I expect as a consequence of World Youth Day? I want a mess. We knew that in Rio there would be great disorder, but I want trouble in the dioceses!" I want to see the church get closer to the people. I want to get rid of clericalism, the mundane, this closing ourselves off within ourselves, in our parishes, schools or structures. Because these need to get out!"

He wants a mess? What does he think he has now?  He wants trouble in the dioceses? I would think large numbers of convicts is trouble enough. He wants the "Church" (i.e. Vatican II sect) get closer to the people? There would be less of the aforementioned convicts if they kept their distance. Get rid of "clericalism"? You mean married "deacons," laymen and laywomen handing out the cracker at the Novus Bogus "Mass," reading the from the book, and basically running the entire parish isn't getting rid of the former priesthood? Mundane? That word comes from the Latin "mundus" or "world," meaning "of this earth" rather than Heavenly. The Novus Bogus is a masterpiece of the mundane, as is the Modernist theology behind it.

Kenneth C. Jones wrote a commendable piece in the Latin Mass magazine; too bad he doesn't reach the logical conclusion of sedevacatism, but it is worth repeating some of his words:

"Expected was a great step forward, instead we find ourselves faced with a progressive process of decadence which has developed for the most part under the sign of a calling back to the Council, and has therefore contributed to discrediting it for many. The net result therefore seems negative. I am repeating here what I said ten years after the conclusion of the work: it is incontrovertible that this period has definitely been unfavorable for the Catholic Church."  

• Since Cardinal Ratzinger made these remarks in 1984, the crisis in the Church has accelerated. In every area that is statistically verifiable — for example, the number of priests, seminarians, priestless parishes, nuns, Mass attendance, converts and annulments — the "process of decadence" is apparent.

• Priests: After skyrocketing from about 27,000 in 1930 to 58,000 in 1965, the number of priests in the United States dropped to 45,000 in 2002. And remember that in all of these statistics, the per capita decline has been even worse, because the number of Catholics has continued to increase since 1965. In 1965 there were 12.l85 priests for every 10,000 Catholics, in 2002 there were 7.l0 — a decline of 46 percent. By 2020, there will be about 31,000 priests — and only 15,000 will be under the age of 70. Right now there are more priests age 80 to 84 than there are age 30 to 34.

 

• Ordinations: In 1965 there were 1,575 ordinations to the priesthood, in 2002 there were 450, a decline of 350 percent. Taking into account ordinations, deaths and departures, in 1965 there was a net gain of 725 priests. In 1998, there was a net loss of 810.

• Priestless parishes: About 3 percent of parishes, 549, were without a resident priest in 1965. In 2002 there were 2,928 priestless parishes, about 15 percent of U.S. parishes. By 2020, a quarter of all parishes, 4,656, will have no priest.

• Seminarians: Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700 — a 90 percent decrease. Without any students, seminaries across the country have been sold or shuttered. There were 596 seminaries in 1965, and only 200 in 2000.

• Sisters: 180,000 sisters were the backbone of the Catholic education and health systems in 1965. In 2002, there were 75,000 sisters, with an average age of 68. By 2020, the number of sisters will drop to 40,000 — and of these, only 21,000 will be age 70 or under. In 1965, 104,000 sisters were teaching, while in 2002 there were only 8,200 teachers. From 1965 to 2002, per capita, the number of sisters fell from 39.43 per 10,000 to 11.56 — a decline of 71 percent.

• Brothers: The number of professed brothers decreased from about 12,000 in 1965 to 5,700 in 2002, with a further drop to 3,100 predicted for 2020.

• High Schools: Between 1965 and 2002 the number of diocesan high schools fell from 1,566 to 786. At the same time the number of students dropped from almost 700,000 to 386,000.

• Parochial Grade Schools: There were 10,503 parochial grade schools in 1965 and 6,623 in 2002. The number of students went from 4.5 million to 1.9 million.

• Sacramental life: In 1965 there were 1.3 million infant baptisms, in 2002 there were 1 million. (In 1965 there were 287 infant baptisms for every 10,000 Catholics, in 2002 there were 154 — a decline of 46 percent.) In 1965 there were 126,000 adult baptisms in 2002 there were 80,000. In 1965 there were 352,000 Catholic marriages, in 2002 there were 256,000. In 1968 there were 338 annulments, in 2002 there were 50,000.

• Mass attendance: A 1958 Gallup poll reported that 74 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1958. A 1994 University of Notre Dame study found that the attendance rate was 26.6 percent. A more recent study by Fordham University professor James Lothian concluded that 65 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1965, while the rate dropped to 25 percent in 2000.

• The decline in Mass attendance highlights another significant fact — fewer and fewer people who call themselves Catholic actually follow Church rules or accept Church doctrine. For example, a 1999 poll by the National Catholic Reporter shows that 77 percent believe a person can be a good Catholic without going to Mass every Sunday, 65 percent believe good Catholics can divorce and remarry, and 53 percent believe Catholics can have abortions and remain in good standing.

•  Only 10 percent of lay religion teachers accept Church teaching on artificial birth control, according to a 2000 University of Notre Dame poll. And a New York Times poll revealed that 70 percent of Catholics age 18-44 believe the Eucharist is merely a "symbolic reminder" of Jesus.

• Religious orders: I'm not being chicken little here, but the religious orders will soon be virtually non-existent in the United States. For example, in 1965 there were 5,277 Jesuit priests and 3,559 seminarians; in 2000 there were 3,172 priests and 389 seminarians. There were 2,534 OFM Franciscan priests and 2,251 seminarians in 1965; in 2000 there were 1,492 priests and 60 seminarians. There were 2,434 Christian Brothers in 1965 and 912 seminarians; in 2000 there were 959 Brothers and 7 seminarians. There were 1,148 Redemptorist priests in 1965 and 1,128 seminarians; in 2000 there were 349 priests and 24 seminarians. Every major religious order in the United States mirrors these statistics.

• If this is renewal, I don't want to be around when the decline sets in."

Well said! He even answers the objection that when people cite these statistics, it's an invalid inference of post hoc, ergo propter hoc.  He writes:

"The final myth I want to discuss is the idea that the crisis we now face was not caused by the Council or the changes imposed in its name. These people would object to Mel Gibson's recent statement in Time magazine, when he was asked about the effects of Vatican II on the Church: "Look at the main fruits; dwindling numbers and pedophilia."  I have a several responses to the post hoc objection, which comes mainly from conservative Catholics.  First, the correlation in time between the holding of the Council and the subsequent decline is just so startling it's beyond reason to deny the link. I won't go through the numbers again, but in every area the numbers flipped almost immediately with the Council — numbers that were on a steep increase immediately before began a precipitous slide.  Second, the most serious declines came in exactly those areas that were most affected by the changes — for example, reform of seminaries and convents led to an immediate decline in vocations; the de-emphasis of the distinction between priest and laity was followed by a dearth of priests; the change of the Mass resulted in plummeting Mass attendance; and the emphasis on ecumenism brought about a decline in conversions and missionary activity. The list is endless.  Third, I think the burden is on those who make the post hoc argument to offer a better reason. If the changes made after Vatican II did not cause the crisis, what did? They offer no other reason. In response to the post hoc objection, I submit another Latin slogan — res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself. " Well said once again, and even agreeing with Traditionalist  Mel Gibson!!

Unfortunately, Mr. Jones makes one serious error. He sees the bad fruits that Our Lord tells us can not come from a good tree, yet he writes:

"I have to submit that one of the greatest obstacles to facing the reality of the disaster after Vatican II — and to working toward reversing the decline — is that many think erroneously that you can't criticize the Council or its aftermath because it imposed infallible dogma. Again, as Michael Davies says, a council can do so, but this Council, as acknowledged by popes and bishops, did not. Another obstacle is a misunderstanding of the nature of infallibility — some people don't understand that the protection provided by the Holy Spirit is a negative protection — that a Council together with the pope will not teach error in matters of faith and morals that it proposes for acceptance by the universal Church.  This is not a guaranty that the calling of a Council is divinely inspired or that every word of every line contained in the documents is inspired or even beneficial.  As Cardinal Ratzinger said in 1988: "The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest."

Sorry, Mr. Miller, you're totally wrong on this one, and that's why you won't escape that Vatican II sect. Davies, and other "conservative" or pseudo-traditionalists who recognize the post-Vatican II "popes" usually quote from Paul VI's January 12, 1966 audience: "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility."

     This proves nothing. "Extraordinary" refers to solemn

dogmatic definitions, which everyone agrees Vatican II did not make. They leave out the rest of his remark, well brought out by Traditionalist priest and author Fr. Anthony Cekada, ""but it [Vatican II] nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium, which ordinary (and therefore obviously authentic) magisterium must be docilely and sincerely received by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council regarding the nature and scope of the respective documents."

Ahem!

If you accept Paul VI as a true pope, therefore, Vatican II is part of the universal ordinary magisterium. As a Catholic, you are then bound to adhere to it. And that was my point.

Still not convinced? Here is the typical formula at the end of each Vatican II document: "Each and every matter declared in this Dogmatic Constitution the Fathers of this Sacred Council have approved. And We by the Apostolic Authority handed down to Us from Christ, together with all the Venerable Fathers, in the Holy Ghost approve, decree and establish these things; and all things thus synodally established, We order to be promulgated unto the glory of God...I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church. There follow the signatures of the rest of the Fathers." (AAS 57 [1965], 71)

What part of "Apostolic Authority," "Holy Ghost" and "rest of the Fathers" don't you understand?

Bottom line: The doctrinal buffet is now closed. If Paul VI was a true pope, there's only one dish on your menu: Vatican II."

Yes, indeed! And a dish that will make you sick if you eat it.

Moral of this post: Vatican II made a mess of everything in the Church and in the world. The last thing we need is Bergoglio telling the youth to go and make things more of a mess by spreading the Vatican II poison of Modernism. We need to clean up the mess, and to do that we must (a) recognize the evil fruits of Vatican II, (b) realize that they can not be from the One True Church, and (c) unlike Mr. Miller and Michael Davies, realize that Ratzinger speaks out of both sides of his mouth (like all Modernists do) and Vatican II must not be merely criticized ,it must be forthrightly and entirely rejected along with the post-Vatican II antipopes. As a recent bumper sticker I saw put it, we must, UNDO VATICAN II.

•