Has the Catholic Church changed since Vatican II? [Part 1/3]

[After much thought, I decided to present my ideas on this topic in a question and answer format (this contains my own opinions and reflections unless otherwise stated)]

Vatican II Council

1.      Has the Catholic Church changed since Vatican II?

Yes, it certain has changed in many aspects. One could say that elements that were warned against in the past had been embraced after Vatican II. Some groups have even concluded from this that the Church has embraced modernism. 

 

2.      What is modernism?

The interested reader can find much information about modernism in the following articles (not an exhaustive list).

Bl. Pius IX: Syllabus of errors 

St. Pius X: Oath against Modernism, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Lamentabili Sane

3.      What are the problematic aspects embraced by the Church since Vatican II?

Those who charge her with embracing modernism claim that during Vatican II,

1. The Church constructed a new notion of religious liberty which is incompatible with what had been taught before in Sacred Tradition.
2. The Church abandoned the notion of the need to convert all peoples to the Catholic faith in favor of dialogue (accused as False Ecumenism) which leads to indifferentism.
3. The Church insists on a newer liturgy that is inferior to the old traditional liturgy with respect to expressing and conveying many of the Catholic truths.
4. There is a lack of mention or insistence on traditional Catholic values pertaining to both faith and morals.

There are other claims made but they can usually be seen to stem from the above general complaints or be traced to a sense of hostility and mistrust that has grown toward the Church for continuing to adhere to the above.

4.      Which specific pronouncements do the above listed changes violate?

(The following is not exhaustive)

Errors condemned in Pope St. Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, section III, V and VI, would seem to be violated by the new notion of religious liberty.  

Errors and activities condemned by Pope Pius XI’s Mortalium Animos for an example would seem to be violated by todays call to dialogue and co-operation toward achieving common ends rather than a call for conversion of non-Catholics. 

On the matter of changing the liturgy, many documents and pronouncements by Popes against changing the liturgy as well as theological and philosophical arguments is said to demonstrate the inferior (in terms of expression) qualities of the new liturgy. It must be said however that the validity of the mass is a determination reserved for the Church and the Church has pronounced the new form of the liturgy to be valid. Many do accept the validity while still finding it unreasonable to see why the Church insists on such an inferior and different liturgy when a far superior one exists. 

The same arguments as for the liturgy can be made for traditions. One simply points out that the traditional life of the Church was not simply an arbitrary byproduct but a response to Catholic teaching. Then to simply discard them would not be reasonable if the underlying truths have not changed. 

5.      Yet you do not think the Church has embraced modernism?

Yes, I do not think that is what has taken place. I believe that the Church has simply decided to tolerate a less than favorable situation and the policies and teachings put forth in Vatican II are meant to help deal with this crisis situation in the world. I think there needs to be a distinction between tolerating fruits of modernism and embracing modernism itself.

6.      What sort of crisis would demand such changes? What was different in the world at the time of Vatican II?

One of the best descriptions of the crisis that the world was facing around Vatican II can be found in the document Pastoralconstiutition on the Church in the modern world, Gaudium et Spes paragraphs $1 -$22 (a document of Vatican II). But I would like to also describe the following changes which it does not include. 

At the time of Vatican II, the States that identified themselves as Catholic were no longer common and the Church and State separation was taking full effect in formerly Catholic strongholds. What had begun with the French Revolution had spread across Europe and had changed the entire dynamic of society and State.   

The errors that were condemned by Pius IX and Pius X must be read in the context of the Church attempting to prevent a cataclysm where the world will fall in to modernism. They rightly condemned ideas and conclusions that stemmed from modernism such as separation of Church and State, the attempt to strip the temporal powers of the Church (mainly concentrated with the Vicar of Christ), the indifferentism toward all religions and the attempt to consider Catholicism as just one religion among the many. Some of the statements against changing the liturgy (one some legitimate points) should also be understood in this context. For if the changes asked at the time by modernist were granted, the Church rightly feared that it will only lead to a wider acceptance of modernism as a valid school of thought.

But it would seem correct to conclude that modernist thought and what it sought to accomplish had indeed triumphed over the Church in the world. The Church had been stripped of her rightful position and her authority curtailed.  The Catholic States that were once in allegiance to the Pope had rebuked Catholicism to become secular States. Indifferentist attitude toward religion was no longer a fear but a wide spread reality. The wide scale agnosticism and atheism that was warned would result from such indifferentism were a reality at the time of the council. 

Modernism had truly wreaked havoc in the world. (Continued to Part 2)

Has the Catholic Church changed since Vatican II? [Part 2/3]

7.      How does that justify changing stance on religious liberty?

Since the Church is no longer recognized by the State and society as the only true Church, she can no longer speak of condemning the idea of a secular state. The condemnations of Pius IX, Pius X and even Pius XI and XII were directed to try and prevent such a separation or correct the situation as soon as it had happened. But now that the change had taken place and the likelihood of a quick turnaround back to the correct path was unlikely, the Church had to adjust her approach. 

We cannot forget that Dignitatis Humanae which presents the new teaching of the Church on religious liberty clearly states 

“…it leaves untouched the traditional Catholic doctrine about the moral duty of men and societies to the true religion and the only Church of Christ.”

The Church then proceeds to describe a framework of religious liberty based on the human dignity of the person (as opposed to the duty owed toward the truth and the Church for such a duty is no longer recognized by the State or society). It seems here that the Church was more concerned of using the commonly acknowledged concept of human dignity at the time to build a case for the protection of the rights of her faithful. Ironically, as the concept of human dignity becomes more and more distorted (for what it means to be “human” was never quiet understood by modern society as Gaudiem et Spes points out), we see renewed attacks on religious liberty today.

 

Signing of Lateran Treaty

 

8.      Should there not be a duty for the Church to insist on making the state Catholic and recognize her authority?

I believe the answer is no. If we were to look at St. Peter, the first Vicar of Christ, he lived in a time where his temporal authority and the dignity of his office were not recognized by any of the States. St. Peter did not ask that it be recognized. Neither did he even proceed to speak of a duty of the State to promote the Catholic religion. He simply worked to make the society Catholic. When a society becomes Catholic, it naturally comes to a recognition of the dignity of the office of Peter and the Church. It is then that they voluntarily recognize the full scope of authority held by the Pope and the Church. One cannot simply force it on to a secular society. 

However, once the Church is recognized and accepted by society, it is the duty of the Church to do her best to keep the faithful from falling away from it. That is why the good Popes prior to the council attempted to stop the slide toward this great cataclysm we see today. But the men and women of power at the time did not heed their warnings and now we have arrived back to a situation in the world closer to the early Church. 

9.      How does all of this justify the shift toward dialogue rather than a call to convert all men in to the Catholic faith?

With the spread of indifferentism, the concept of being told that one is wrong about their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) is considered unacceptable. A missionary preacher can no longer go in to a street intersection and just preach repentance and salvation. If such preaching were wide spread, it can even bring down the arm of the State against the Church as a public nuisance. Amidst all of this, the rise in individualism and the extreme diversity in needs (or reasons for confusion) even within a small geographical location had made it difficult to find a common concern to address when preaching to a mass audience. So from the perspective of the Church, the modernist culture has walled itself up against the traditional approach of spreading the good news.

One may point out that preaching the truth was always considered a public nuisance and that is why almost all the first Apostles were martyred. However, one must keep in mind that the unlike in the past, the Church and her hierarchy is a very visible and localized entity (which is a good thing). Therefore, if the State were to desire taking action to suppress the Church as a result of explicit preaching, that would be undesirable. Considering the low likelihood of converting persons through such preaching in street corners, it seems reasonable to avoid it.

Therefore the Church chose to engage other faiths and the irreligious through dialogue. She tolerates portraying her approach to dialogue as an opportunity for both parties to mutually enrich each other. The fact that the Church is the only true Church can no longer be stated at the outset for such a thing is irrelevant to world of religious indifferentism. 

So the end desired result is still conversion but the Church has to describe it in and engage in it in terms that are culturally acceptable to the world.

10.      Is this a desirable state of affairs?

I think the answer is no. One would imagine that dialogue of this kind is always very slow and makes it difficult to speak the truth about other faiths directly. On the other hand, the command to Evangelize has a more urgent tone for the salvation of souls is at risk. 

We see problems today in the fact that the Catholic Church rarely points out the faults of another faith. She still tells the faithful that apostasy is a sin but this point has started to carry less weight when the only emphasis with respect to other faiths is in speaking of truths in common with Catholicism. 

The same hesitancy to mention the errors of other faiths (and that of irreligion) that lead people away from God and salvation is also a problem on the topic of evangelizing. Every document released since Vatican II on the topic avoids mentioning the traditional reason for evangelizing; it has always been to save those who are outside the Church for they will very likely perish to the fires of hell. Since the Church is interested in having dialogue with those outside of her, she finds it difficult to state such a thing and still have good relations in dialogue. The usual insistence for evangelizing is based on bringing others to the complete truth which is only present in the Catholic Church (which seems to be not as jarringly incompatible with modern social perception). But one can legitimately wonder why it is so urgent or even necessary to bring others to the fullness of truth if they are saved as they are. 

Overall, I think anyone can see that Ecumenism is a compromise by the Church to carry out her mission in today’s society. Like with any compromise, it causes problems for the Church as well. Today, the confusion caused through ecumenism is emerging in the shape of a rising level of indifferentism inside the Church as well as lack of enthusiasm to preach the gospel. The main emphases of some missionary groups have tended to become centered on handling temporal poverty or solving some temporal problems without any attempt to convert. 

Sadly, this is a compromise that the Church has had to make in order to reach out to the very world that had driven itself to such a crisis. (Continued to Part 3)

Has the Catholic Church changed since Vatican II? [Part 3/3]

11.      But why change the Liturgy?

I think it is safe to say that the Liturgical reforms carried out since Vatican II was probably more than what the council intended. The favoring of a possible change to the vernacular (while keeping the Latin in the Church) was already hinted by Pope Pius XII. So it would seem natural that the Church found the translation to the vernacular a compromise that she could make in some cases. However, the council documents themselves indicated that the Latin must be preserved (Sacrosanctum Concilium) since it is the official language of the Latin rite Church.  

Tridentine Mass

12.      So why didn’t the Church revert back to the Old mass once it was clear that the Church had strayed too far from the intentions of the council?

Perhaps it is because the Church saw the reversion back to the old mass will be seen by the world as the Church returning to what it considers the unacceptable older version of the Church. It is quite likely that the older form of the mass will be reestablished if and when the Church is given her rightful place again in society. Even today, the old mass is to coexist alongside the new mass according to the decrees in Summorum Pontificum.   

13.      So we will see the rise of the traditional practices again in the Church at some future time?

I believe so. The traditional values of the Church were formed to support a Catholic way of living over 2000 years. The more Catholic the world tends to become, the more it will find the traditional values naturally attractive. This is probably why we see some converts to the Catholic faith join traditionalist groups within a short time in the Church. 

14.      But this seems to be an incorrect claim considering the Popes have made it clear that Vatican II is here to stay?

Vatican II does not condemn traditions of the Church. Vatican II is certainly here to stay in the sense that it will always be the Council that adjusted the Church to continue in a world that had become hostile to her and stripped her of the authority and position that she rightly held. But apart from the explicit doctrine which cannot obviously contradict the doctrine already present in Sacred Tradition, rest of Vatican II is a pastoral compromise to reach out to the world in a period where the Church has been stripped of her rightful position in society. Therefore, that aspect of Vatican II must pass away when the Church is restored to her full glory while the teachings will remain. 

15.      So is everything going according to plan in the Church then?

As hinted above, I think the answer is no. There are those who have incorrectly understood Vatican II to be a break with sacred tradition. One part of this group has left the Church and continues asking for the rejection of Vatican II. The other part inside the Church has spread havoc. They have invented theological concepts such as “Anonymous Christian” and a concept of God’s mercy that would make it seem impossible for God to punish any person for any sin. All such things have led to a weakening of the faith. 

Some irresponsible ecumenical activities involving faithful who do not even have an understanding of the motive for such events has led to indifferentism inside the Church. Many tend to see all faiths as good and equally capable paths to salvation. That is not a good thing. 

Traditional values have been all but abandoned, for the Church tends to not mention them. The lack of values such as modesty and other traditional values guiding relationships between men and women have led to an increase in sexual sin within the Church. Hostility toward traditional wisdom has also led men and women to marry outside the faith and an increase in broken or undesirable marriages. Divorce rates among Catholic is climbing. There are children growing up in Catholic families without receiving the faith from their parents.

The Catholic faith also tends to get portrayed as a temporal tool. Perhaps with an idea that it will make it easier to spread the gospel, some tend to emphasize temporal benefits of Christianity rather than accepting it because it is the truth. This may include the mention of factors like more happiness and joy, higher life expectancy, higher income levels, loving community, and other sorts of temporal benefits that are said to correlate with Christianity. These persons tend to forget the truth that in times of persecution, being a Christian meant embracing a life of sorrow and a drastic reduction in life expectancy. The joy of Christianity is also a joy different from what the world tends to identify by that term. The true joy in Christianity comes from knowing the truth and surrendering to the will of God. So it is more intellectual than emotional as well. Overall, while mention of such temporal benefits can certainly draw followers, work must be done to dispel their misunderstandings. If not, they could soon leave the faith for not receiving what they mistakenly thought they should receive as a Christian. Worse, they will spread the same misguided view of Christianity making it seem like a temporal enterprise to be changed and manipulated for maximizing these temporal ends.

16.      What is our duty then in these times?

I believe our duty is to pray for the conversion of the world to Catholicism. We must also pray for our Pope and Church leaders to guide our Church wisely and prudently in these troubled times. Apart from prayers, we should try our best at the individual level to convert those whom we meet to the faith, charitably correct fellow Catholics who have a misguided view of Vatican II and the Church teachings, and preserve the great traditions of the Church in our communities and within our families. 

In the words of St. John the Bosco, “May we dare hope to see peace in the world and the Church's triumph before the end of our lives? We could then sing our Nunc dimittis. However, may God's will be done in all things. The triumph of the Church is certain; if we do not see it here below, we shall witness it, I hope from heaven.”

***