Time to Let Go of Vatican 2
Several months back Father Hugh Somerville-Knapman, OSB wrote a must read article over at his blog, One Foot in the Cloister. For those not familiar with Fr. Hugh, a Benedictine monk and priest of Douai Abbey in Berkshire, U.K., he is no liturgical bomb thrower. His arguments are always well reasoned and thoughtful, which is why it’s worth revisiting.
“Vale Vatican II: Moving On” verbalizes what a growing number of the faithful are finally coming to grips with. In the words of Fr. Hugh: “it is time now to let go of the Council.” While I encourage everyone to read the full article, there are several points worth highlighting here.
Fr. Hugh begins by making the (obvious) acknowledgement that the world has changed greatly since the 1960’s. This would hardly matter if the Council had sought to clarify doctrine and timeless truths, but it is relevant for a Council claiming to be pastoral in its scope and very purpose. As Father writes:
It described itself as a pastoral council, and it sought to repackage the teaching, life and worship of the Church to suit a world in flux. For this very reason the Council was necessarily going to have a best-before date. That date has been passed. The sad thing is that its milk turned sour very soon after packaging.
Fr. Hugh rightly notes that “Catholic vitality has plummeted” in the post-conciliar years, at least when measured by weekly Mass attendance and vocations. There is no need to restate the dire data here. If one still disputes this they cannot be taken seriously and should step away from the grown up table; these discussions aren’t for you.
Father continues with an assessment of the ecclesial landscape of the last five decades:
By any reasonable standard of judgment the application of the Council failed, miserably, to achieve the Council’s aims. This statistical revelation of decline is quite apart from the decline experienced by Catholics as they have seen dogmas, doctrines, morals and many other elements of Catholic life thrown into chaos in the wake of the Council.
Acknowledging that the Church is indeed growing in much of the developing world (think Africa and Asia), Fr. Hugh notes that its growth in the west is only occurring in certain places:
But here’s the rub: it is growing precisely where much of what was discarded by the post-conciliaristas is slowly and sensibly being reclaimed and integrated into the world of 2017 rather than the mid-1960s. What they are reclaiming is essential, timeless Catholicism rather than the tired mantras and shibboleths of the “Vatican II Church”. The young have discovered, and many of the older re-discovered, that there was a Church before Vatican II, and it was healthy, vital and beautiful.
Fr. Hugh then states his simple, clear, and polemic free conclusion: it’s time to move on from the Council and (instead) to reclaim what the Church always was:
Thus it makes no sense to be constantly referencing every contemporary initiative to Vatican II, for justification or acceptance-value. It is time to move from a post-conciliar Church to a post-post-conciliar Church; which is to say, it is time to reclaim the Church as She has always been in her essence and her stable form, which has been able to function viably and vitally in every age and circumstance since the time of Christ.
A growing number of the faithful have indeed moved on from post-conciliarism. Among many Catholics, particularly the young, the sentiment and conclusions of Fr. Hugh are being realized. Our point of reference and foundation is the Church’s history and tradition, not simply the most recent Council in the history of the Church.
Sadly, it would seem few bishops have connected the dots yet. May thoughtful articles by thoughtful men, such as Fr. Hugh Somerville-Knapman, help them to finally move on (and move forward) as the Church reclaims “essential, timeless Catholicism.” For the sake of the salvation of souls, pray that it happens soon.
Share this:
Posted on February 4, 2018, in liturgy and tagged Fr. Hugh Somerville-Knapman, post-conciliar, tradition, vatican 2. Bookmark the permalink. 38 Comments.
liturgy guy 
I like many of the Vatican II changes. The pre-Vatican 2 rituals and outward ceremonies were beautiful, but there is more to Christianity than that.
The most insidious part was the loss of sound doctrine. When the Friday abstinence was relaxed it was said we were “more mature” now, whatever that meant. Sounded odd to me then. Me more mature than the martyrs? My children received First Confession two years after First Communion. The rosary was denigrated. Purgatory doubted. I could go on and on. I’m so glad that the traditional Mass priests are emphasizing also the traditional doctrines and the need to be prepared for death, which is what the Church should be doing. Jesus said “My Kingdom is not of this world,” and we’ve been trying too hard to be part of this world.
After Vatican II, the Church went the liberal route instead of the Biblical route.
To the extent you are talking about post-Vatican II liturgical reforms, consider whether the most important question is what style of Mass you prefer, or what is the best form of worship we can offer to God. And at the end of the day, there is no more to Christianity than that.
For me, the most important part of Christianity is the peace and strength that I get from unconditionally trusting in Christ. This is what made Christianity real for me; and it is a 24-7 thing.
You’re right, and the question is not what do I like but what does God want.
Who said there wasn’t?
Fr. Hugh rightly notes that “Catholic vitality has plummeted” in the post-conciliar years, at least when measured by weekly Mass attendance and vocations. There is no need to restate the dire data here. If one still disputes this they cannot be taken seriously and should step away from the grown up table; these discussions aren’t for you.
Those who assert this rather than those who dispute it are the ones who cannot be taken seriously. The above statement is only true if one thinks that white First World Catholics are the only ones that count.
That is unfortunate because if the polemics of those more aggrieved by loss of their cultural dominance rather than spiritual concerns could be set aside, there is a basis here for serious discussion.
The serious discussion might start with the address of Cardinal George at Loyola University in October of 1999 along with his fellow panelists. And young Catholics in our own society and well as Pope Francis himself provide ample examples of a “third way” Catholic movement that is not part of either positive nor negative reaction to the Council.
Such a discussion would actually be interesting as well as helpful to the Church today. But it requires both sides to drop their tired and outdated polemics.
Kurt states that the idea that Catholic vitality has plummeted in the post-conciliar years “is only true if one thinks that white First World Catholics are the only ones that count”.
He ignores the parts of the article referencing areas outside the West, e.g.
“Acknowledging that the Church is indeed growing in much of the developing world (think Africa and Asia)”, and also ignores the evidence for decay even in huge portions of the developing world.
For example, the Church in Latin America grew in terms of raw numbers after Vatican II due to rapid population growth but has been hemorrhaging faithful as a % of population self-identifying as Catholic for decades now – to say nothing of Mass attendance, vocations, and belief. 1910 = 94%, 1950 = 94%, 1970 = 92%, 1995 = 80%, 2014 = 69%, 2017 = 59% and falling.
That’s a 33 point drop in Catholics in a region of ~650M souls – or over 200 million souls.
It is in this context that the injunction applies: “If one still disputes this they cannot be taken seriously and should step away from the grown up table; these discussions aren’t for you.”
Yes, Thorfinn bravo!
In South America, it is not uncommon for Church attendance to be below 5% whichever country you care to sample.
I lived in Ecuador for 7 years and the Church in South America was decimated by at least 45 years of liberation theology. Before Vatican II, the church attendance in South America had been north of 80% in any single country one cared to sample.
The facts are inconvenient to anyone who does not like the preconceived notion that they are holding on to in order to get the answer they prefer.
I’m really a pragmatist at heart. No one is helped by sticking one’s head in the sand or ignoring the glaring elephant in the room.
The only way anyone gets healthy or corrects a problem is by admitting the problem and then working towards a solution. It does get tiring trying to point out facts for those who can’t be bothered by the numbers. I once had a pastor claim that 25% of his registered parishioners were coming to Mass each Sunday. Never mind that that number would have exceeded the capacity of the Church times the number of Sunday Masses! Then too, he wasn’t even interested in including all of the baptized Catholics living in his parish boundaries who were not practicing their faith.
These discussions are somewhat hopeless when discussed with those who don’t want to know what they don’t know.
In Latin America we have a third situation, distinct from the post-VC2 evangelization in Africa and Asia. To say before Vatican II, the church attendance in South America had been north of 80% in any single country one cared to sample is laughable on its face. Take the population in 1950 and divide by the number of churches and you see how nuts this is.
Whatever the faults of Liberation Theology, the pre-counciliar church in Latin America was an institution of the elite. The lower classes rarely saw a priest and the (native) priests (all from the elite and professional classes) were rarely interested in pastoral work with the poor. The worse case was Cuba which is why I am not surprised it went Communist.
Only the willfully blind can deny Fr. Hugh’s assertions here. None — not one — of the goals of Vatican II has ever been attained; it is a rank failure regardless of how one measures its designs. What we have left from this bad idea is inane and dreary music unworthy even of the stage in Nashville, insipid sermons and vapid liturgies, empty confessionals, seriously declining numbers in the pews, the decimation of Catholic schools, widespread ignorance of even the most fundamental teachings of the Church, appallingly few vocations, and scandals that make the times of the Borgia Pope look like nirvana. The much-vaunted (by ‘progressives’ at least) “fruits of Vatican II? Sure there are fruits. Problem is they are all rotten. All of them, no exceptions.
What about Orientalium Ecclesiarum? That’s the only part I’ve read—sorry—but because I was searching for Church documents particularly relevant to me, when I was received into Catholic communion from Russian Orthodoxy. These things seem to have been done, generally, regarding Eastern Churches that I know about, e.g. because I was received, also my husband returned to the Ruthenian Church… ‘that they may flourish and with new apostolic vigor execute the task entrusted to them’; ‘each individual Church or Rite should retain its traditions whole and entire’ (i.e. Latinizations, which the Popes have always opposed, are at least almost all removed, e.g. my husband’s 1st Communion was delayed, but infant communion is now restored); ‘protection…of all the individual Churches’; ‘All clerics and those aspiring to sacred Orders should be instructed in the rites and especially in the practical norms that must be applied in interritual questions’ (one priest had though we were supposed to be made Latin/Roman Catholics, but he was transferred & the new priest said that wasn’t possible b/c we were already Byzantines—both are Latin Mass FSSP priests, so the latter is not a hippie or anything like that); & ‘each and every Catholic, as also the baptized of every non-Catholic church or denomination who enters into the fullness of the Catholic communion, must retain his own rite wherever he is, must cherish it and observe it to the best of his ability’ (& this was done: my husband was kept Ruthenian, & I was received as a Russian Catholic).
I don’t think it was proven (or even addressed) in this article that the desecration of the Latin Rite was actually FRUIT of Vat. 2. W/o evidence directly from the Council, it looks to me like a post hoc fallacy. Probably the people responsible for the desecration lied, using Vat. 2 as an excuse, because they’re really just revolutionaries & have no morals. Revolutionaries don’t want to obey the Pope, or any other bishop (except a heretic, & only when it’s convenient), & they don’t care that they ruin people’s lives & inheritance, which I think we do all agree was a vast disaster in the Latin/Roman Church. I WOULD like to see types of abuse traced directly back to specific points of Vat. 2, if it’s possible, or to WHATEVER origin they had. I think we should know exactly whom to blame for what, much like we can blame Arius, iconoclasts, & Martin Luther. Like, I read once the 1st evidence of giant scary puppets was in a Soviet parade (saw a picture too), but can’t remember now if it said who brought them into Catholic churches & with what false excuse. Then of course there were clown Masses, the circus Mass, etc. Somebody needs to write a historical book exposing the origins of all this sacrilege. I’d love to buy it
It’s not just Vatican II but society changed in the late 60s, we who remember the 50s see it so very clearly . I’m more convinced it was because we did not make the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart. Society as well as the Church have lost their way and the results are devastating.
Salve Brian! Thank you for your kindness in taking the time to read and share my meagre contribution to reviving the Church.
Blessings.
Thank you Dom Hugh! As I said in my post, your article brings a reasoned and charitable voice to this very important, and very delicate, matter. It was an honor to direct thoughtful Catholics to it.
A page on FB “Rev. Fr. Paul Wickens in memoriam” chronicles the demise of the Archdiocese of Newark under the aegis of +Peter Gerety and +Theodore McCarrick of unhappy memory.
Thank you for the link. I had never heard of Fr. Wickens. We are certainly living in difficult times.
Vatican II provided some fruit if you follow that the Encyclicals of Saint John Paul the Great state how to implement the pastoral initiatives of the Council. Especially with his Encyclical, Christifidelis Laici which explains how the laity should work alongside the Pastors to spring up new Apostolates, which they have done in great numbers. This blog is an outgrowth of JPII’s pastoral insight of how to implement the Council. The Catechism and Code of Canon Law further implemented the Council. So, now, we have those resources. The documents are less necessary now that all the Apostolates have sprung up to show how it is “only through the mystery of the Incarnate Word does the mystery of man takes on light (GeS, 22).” Oh, I guess we do need some of the great quotes from the documents to help us explain the work of these Apostolates!
So what did happen to the Church? Why the mass exodus of priests and nuns as well as laity?
Now, I’ve been told that none of the documents of V2 called for any of the things that happened post V2 (turning altars, removing communion rails, et al). I’ve not read them, so assuming this is the case, isn’t it the tumultuous late 60s and the bishops of the time the real cause of the so-called spirit of V2? After all, we grow up in the society in which we live. We will be formed by secular society at least as much but probably more than by the Church unless our parents are assiduous in our proper formation in the Church.
Just like now, in today’s society, you have the “normalization” of sodomy, and in the Church, you have clergymen who advocate for same-sex marriage or at least for the blessing of same-sex unions.
Fortunately, we who did not receive a good formation in the faith when we were young can take advantage of podcasts, Catholic radio, and books to learn about the faith. Personally, since I’ve done this over the last about 12 years, I’ve discovered the beauty and infinite profundity of the faith and want everybody to know it. Unfortunately, sharing the faith is like sharing your awesome study abroad experiences. People will listen to a few stories and then want you to shut up. With the faith, people will listen for a little while and then want you to shut up.
If it is true that the hierarchy have not connected the dots, I find it impossible to believe that it is unintentional. The dots have been there, and getting bigger and bigger, since at least the 90s (erring on the conservative side) or the late 60s (more probably; the rot set in in the US very early, I think). I do not believe that the bishops are stupid people who can’t see in front of them. Only idelogical blinders can explain it. They are so captive to the “spirit of Vatican II”, whatever that means in any momentary context, that they cannot (WILL not) see the problems it has caused in the church. I have experienced the working out of that attitude in personal exchanges with Catholics of my own age (mid 60s) or a little younger who, when involved in any discussion of these topics, inform one that “NO ONE wants to go back to THAT”, THAT being anything like the pre-conciliar church, in a tone of voice more appropriate to discussing something disgusting one has just stepped in, barefoot. I promise you, that has been said to me, in those exact terms. Until these blinders are removed, or those wearing them are, none of this will change, and all of us will reap the consequences. Pray for the church and her faithful.
Was the pre-conciliar Church, immediately prior to the V2 Council, “essential, timeless Catholicism”? That is debatable. How did it compare with the New Testament Catholicism?
I think that they were quite different; especially, in the emphasis on Mary and the Eucharist that is absent in the NT Church which emphasized the Holy Spirit and its fruit.
Anyone who disputes the fact that the vitality of Catholicism has plummeted, and cites its vitality in 3rd world countries as evidence is missing the point. How many Catholic churches and schools in America have closed in the last 50 years? Go to Mass anywhere and do a quick estimate of the average age of the parishioners. We see smaller and smaller groups of kids celebrating 1st Communion. Once they receive the Sacrament of Confirmation they typically disappear and we don’t see them again until their wedding or their funeral.
The Novus Ordo is done. As of 2016, the official CARA number for Catholics attending Mass here in the USA was 22%. That was inflated then and it certainly has fallen precipitously since the scandal in August of this year.
Here at our parish, the Novus Ordo Masses are now almost empty. Not so with our Traditional Latin Masses. Then there’s the money. TLM faithful give 5 times what their Novus Ordo brethren give in the collection. Even my recently completed study showed that before (1/4 of my 1750+ samples were in before August – 3/4 after September) and after the scandal the TLM faithful attended Mass at a 98% clip.
All across the country I’m hearing that the TLM is gaining refugees from the Novus Ordo. The faithful know that it was the Novus Ordo clergy who were responsible for the sexual scandals with very few exceptions. The bishops have shown they will not clean up their seminaries nor their rectories.
France will have more Latin Masses than Novus Ordo Masses by 2038. In the USA, it will be around 2055. It is simple demographics and priestly vocations.
“The faithful know it was the Novus Ordo clergy who were responsible for the sexual scandals….”
The scandalous priests started to enter the Church in the 1920s, so it wasn’t all post-V2 clerics who were guilty.
@ Michael “With very few exceptions.” Quote the whole quote in context.
Why is it that the TLM attendance is not falling but rising? Why is it that the Novus Ordo numbers keep falling? I am a veteran of 3 seminaries (2 Novus Ordo and the other the FSSP). Believe me, there is almost no problem among traditional priestly vocations compared to what is happening in the Novus Ordo. Follow the money paid out. For my Diocese alone it is $52 million and they were all post Vatican II cases.
Fr. Kloster I hope what you say is true about the NO decreasing and the TLM increasing in the future. But I just don’t see it here in the San Antonio Archdiocese. I think there’s only one parish that offers it here.
Nullify Vatican II and abolish the Novus Ordo Missae.
Pingback: Time to Let Go of Vatican 2 | Princeps militiae caelestis
Pingback: Canon212 Update: Why is FrancisChurch Gay? Because it’s Self-Loathing and Repulsive – The Stumbling Block
Pingback: A Late-Night Counsel to the Bold and the Beautiful – Dominus mihi adjutor
Pingback: A Late-Night Counsel to the Bold and the Beautiful - OnePeterFive
Pingback: One peter five:A Late-Night Counsel to the Bold and the Beautiful – Titre du site
Pingback: liturgy guy Life, Liturgy and the Pursuit of Holiness-site d’un converti au catholicisme – Titre du site
Pingback: liturgy guy Life, Liturgy and the Pursuit of Holiness-site d’un converti au catholicisme – sourceserlande
Pingback: Vale Vatican II: Moving On-site de Fr Hugh -Church life – sourceserlande
Pingback: Vale Vatican II: Moving On-site de Fr Hugh -Church life – Titre du site