Was Vatican II a Failure? 

I'm 28. I became a Catholic when I was 22 (grew up Episcopalian). I never new Catholicism before Vatican II, but I am enthralled by the beauty and solemness of the Tridentine Mass. I sense that many other young Catholics feel the same way.

As a late 20s cradle Catholic in South Africa, I wouldn't look at Africa as a positive simply because of numbers. The church is becoming a product of the era. Allow the TLM to live freely alongside the Novus Ordo

I am 88. I lived and worked in Rome during the Council, and in the late 1960’s worked as a translator in the Vatican. I think the decisions have largely not been implemented as intended, and this rests largely on the shoulders of some bishops not being courageous and firm enough, and many priests not studying the documents enough. +

Maybe!? Not maybe. Definitely! People do not believe as they used to when I was a child and adolescent. People were not taught the faith after Vatican II . Good catechesis ceased.

"By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" (Matt 7:16)

I'm reading G.K. Chesterton's collected writings right now - "Heretic, Orthodoxy, and The Everlasting Man" Two points - 1. whether in the US, in Germany, or in South Korea when the Priest said Dominus vobis cum, I knew the response was Et cum spiritu tuu. So, I could actively participate in Mass wherever I was stationed. 2. I feel like the focus of attention (adoration) has shifted from the Eucharist (which we all faced together) to the priest.

I'm 56, and my older sister and I attended Catholic school (a small school, K-8). During a discussion, we both agreed that neither of us learned anything about our faith. I don't even remember being taught how to go through the Bible. My knowledge has come from my searching and reading and finding informative videos such as Word on Fire. I would often hear others say, "Oh, you were born after Vatican II." This comment seemed to me as if they were saying that I wasn't educated properly in the faith. I didn't even know how to pray a rosary. I asked a close friend in my early 20's. It was embarrassing. Seriously, where did the ball get dropped?

My husband and I, and therefore our four living children, wouldn’t be Catholic today without the videos of Bishop Barron. We converted in 2020. We are very traditional people: we homeschool our children, we live on a homestead in rural Appalachia, my husband works from home, and our family hierarchy is very traditional. But we have always loved, from the first simply military mass we attended on a base in Germany, vernacular masses. We love and value the TLM too, but we don’t have a special preference for it. That is pretty surprising to the people who meet us! But mass isn’t really an exercise in culture or personality. I don’t know what the answers to all this are, I am not about to argue with the authority of the church. That’s what I was accepting when I became Catholic, after all. I am no great theologian, only a simple homeschooling mother, but I am a lover and student of history, and through that lens I do know that our entire culture and the “west” as a whole have decided that God is an unnecessary, antiquated notion no longer needed. And I think that would be the case even if V II had never occurred. My daily act of radical subversion to this is to try to love my family. Changing diapers, washing dishes, doing our taxes, taking care of the farm animals. I can’t change the world. All I can hope to do is work and pray, pray and work, and by the grace of God the vapor of this life will end with our reunification with Him. Pray for our Church, pray for the Pope, our Bishops, our countries. And love our families & communities.

I remember being in grade school when the changes started. The third statement of this discussion is exactly what happened in my head! Growing up from around a 10 year old as life was getting tough (so I thought as a 10+ year old) being in a Catholic grade school I always felt that the church was this solid reliable stalwart. Then the changes started, then more and more...threw me for a loop from which I never recovered.

As a Catholic, I particularly have nothing against the Second Vatican Council. I really don't know much about it. I just love Jesus Christ and concentrate a lot on staying on track.

"Was Vatican II a failure?" is like the questions, "Was the French Revolution a failure?" or "Was the Bolshevik Revolution a failure?".

Well, just look at the fruits. Did we see the promised revitalization in the church, or a decline?

The Council of Trent was always accepted and loved.

I'm a new Catholic and I was certainly drawn in by the Latin mass. The younger generation that has any interest in converting is yearning for what they lacked: tradition, heritage, stalwart leadership in faith, and an general agnosticism towards the spirit of the age. We were raised in a secular, atheistic culture that robbed us of the sacred and we want it back. Although I don't understand fully all the implications of Vatican II, I know that the mass as it stands has some challenges for younger converts like me. The aesthetics are often not austere, not holy. We want to worship God and we want to enter a holy space where we can leave the world behind to focus of the mass and the prayers of the church. For us, that does mean a certain nod to the past, not the past of the 1960's but the long past, the eternal. Guitar strumming and cajon beat boxes will never invoke this for us. Maybe for our parents it makes them feel more close to the mass, but for us and for any generations after, it is just corny, and fundamentally secular. I think Brian Holdsworth made this point, if you allow one generation to define the aesthetic, it will ultimately end up outdated and be in constant need of updating. This is what Tradition is supposed to solve. While I think I understand the intention was to bring the mass back down to the laity and allow more opportunities for them to participate and bring their modern lives to the table, this was a big error. What was not understood was just how corrupt the lay culture had become and how manipulated it is now. It is not a real, organic, culture. It is the result of decades of cultural warfare, propaganda, "public relations", and nihilistic deconstruction philosophies. Ethnicity has been replaced by consumer choice. It's would be one thing if, say, a pre-modern Irish folk style was injected into the mass music in Ireland; that was a real culture that still possessed the ability to invoke the sacred. Not to mention, the musical culture (I harp on that because I am in the music ministry) that came in in the 60's was fundamentally rooted in a radical "freedom" movement that cannot coexist within the church. In fact, a reaction to this movement is largely what is bringing new converts in. I think there is still an opportunity to correct the missteps. Maybe it starts with admitting the short-sightedness and optimism of the 60's, and let's have a collective reality check about where the world is, and more importantly, where our souls really are 60 years later. Hindsight is 20/20 and there's no reason why we can't start steering the church back into a more appropriate synthesis of tradition and participation. If you want to save souls, you have to be honest about the state they are in.

"Look at the votes," but did the Council Fathers know what they were signing up for? The implementation turned out to be far more radical than the changes the documents mandated.

Bishop Barron, I just heard you say that the Council was not a failure , but that it was poorly implemented. I am curious as to what you think were those aspects that were poorly implemented and what as the new bishop of your diocese can you change to reflect the intentions of the Council.

Why does the Pope put so much emphasis on suppressing the Tridentine Mass? I don't understand. Wouldn't it be more logical to allow both forms of the mass and for Catholics to choose which one brings us closer to the Church?

We torn up our beautiful churches organs for guitars and dancing with a piece of plywood where the high alter used to be

Why did the church abandon the use of wearing their “religious dress”. As a doctor an order of nuns came to my office regularly. They complained that they didn’t get respect on the street or in stores. That didn’t get a discount in stores 31:01 31:01 anymore. I told them because you’re not wearing your habit anymore. How would people know who you are? Then there wasn’t any interest joining their order any more.

We have a lot of very conservative African priests in our diocese in Pennsylvania. Thank God for them.

I love listening to how clearly you state things! I was 6 years old when the council started. I don't remember the traditional Latin Mass. My father is Catholic and my mother Lutheran, but neither one knew very much about Christianity apart from going to Church on Sunday and sending us to CCD. My father is also retired Army, so I lived in many different places and catechesis wasn't strong. I used to complain to my husband about our lack of knowledge of our faith and he reminds me always that things happen in God's time. It's easy to blame it on the council,, but when I read the documents of Vatican II, I found them beautiful. God put me in a diocese that offered ongoing faithful education. My own children and now my grandchildren are growing in the faith of the Church. They are loving God with their hearts and their minds. I do see them as the fruit of the council; not a blind faith in repetitive traditions, but a constant learning and growing in relationship with Jesus Christ.

The implementation was a complete failure

Vatican II worked for me. I'm now a kingdom's servant, I'm now a Lord's mighty warrior. God bless

The reason we resist it is mainly what it did to the Mass...for most people this is their rock...and the new Mass it just too different from the old...The new Mass and the way it is celebrated is in conflict with the pre Conciliar Mass... There is too much that came out of Vatican II that conflicts with pre Conciliar teachings and that is not addressed by the Church...Allowing that conflict to fester and harden is a mistake...stating we " can't go back" flies in the face of Vatican II which tells us we are going back indeed to a time at the beginning of the Church...the way things were in antiquity....

Very helpful insights from our Bishop. I was 6 when the Council began, and my formative years as a Catholic were lived in the implementation of the Council teachings. We talked out Faith matters in our home, and we were a family where reflection on the news, politics, philosophy and the connection between Faith and Culture were ever part of the discourse. Even as a child, it seemed clear to me that the tensions over implementation were not about the vernacular Liturgy, or fasting or taking Communion by the hand. The tension was in the diametric perceptions of what needed to change, and what could not change. A large number of Catholics wanted the Church to liberalize teachings on divorce, birth control, premarital cohabitation, women clergy, female altar servers, etc etc etc. All the same gender and sexual liberty issues we still grapple with today (though fewer then). Those Catholics wanted the Church to get on board with modernity. Vatican II DID NOT DO SO. But because certain practices had been altered, some given more to diocesan level discretion, they saw these as cracks in the wall; not a "red light" in front of their agenda, but a "yellow light", which left them discretion on how to interpret Church Law. The Council did not go where they wanted, but they thought that the changes that were made left open a window for more liberal interpretation and more freewheeling practice. These things I clearly perceived as underway by the time I was just 12. The Bishop naturally looks back on the Council and ensuing years from an ecclesiastical framework. My experience and views were formed at "ground zero", so to speak. What went wrong after the Council wasn't the Council's fault. It was as much a sociological as an ecclesiastical phenomenon. The question before the house remains: Is the Church to transform the World, or will the World co-opt the Church? Thankfully, the Council said, the former. Dogma is universal, customs local. The Council never misled the Faithful, but some of the Faithful twisted the teachings to sound like what they wanted to hear. That is my abiding recollection.

Bishop Barron is so right, cultural change caused people to fall away from the church. People live in the moment, no law(s) for me. Then people followed others to be nonbelievers. Vatican II was not the failure, it was hope and help for people. Just as God/Jesus/Mary are hope in teachings. We the people fail through their free will. Then when judgement day comes, they will say, the majority of people did what I did I followed them. God will say you should of followed me, and not followed mankind into sinful ways. 🙏

Vatican 2 is not what the churches are doing today. St Paul the 6th would be super upset if he saw how the masses, mostly empty, are. The only churches I see growing are the TLM masses where most of them I barely can find a space to sit if I come slightly late. NO and TLM are the same in terms of giving the sacraments. However, I dont see why a lot of the things were done away from the old mass, because those things are what keep you looking forward to God, such as first friday and saturday devotion or teachings of fatima or the scapular.

There were some good intentions- but ultimately terrible consequences

Thank you Bishop Robert. You open so much up for us. 🙏

The question isn’t even worth asking.. it is a failure!

Instead of examining the zeitgeist through the lens of Catholic teaching, the Church is doing the opposite.

Not just Catholicism my friend. I asked my Protestant sister why she doesn't go to Church. Her response was that she hasn't found one that meets her needs yet. I get it! To agree! But talk about a secular world. The notion that, "I will go to Church if I can find one that meets and bends to my need." Religion, in general, is under fire and failing. But I guess that has been the case since it's inception. Even before Christianity. The nature of man in full display.

The TLM should not be restricted. TLM parishes are thriving. Embrace the tradition for those who want it. Vatican II did need to happen, but we should have never lost the reverence of our faith. Novus Ordo can be reverent, I've seen it.

It appears that some jimmies are about to be rustled

I attended the Novus Ordo modern Catholic Church for 25 years, to help my wife raise our kids Catholic. I never converted to Catholicism. The services were light & almost silly, the priests told jokes, the music "ministry" was pop & amateurish, the deacons held communion, girl alter-servers, etc. Once I tried the Latin Traditional Mass, I saw something that was reverent, spiritual, & serious. Just what I needed. I'm in the process of converting now....but not for the Novus Ordo. It's an embarrassment.

Vatican 2 was the first step to converting Catholicism into Protestantism with a pope.

when will Catholics get with the programme ?? Maybe ask Bishops!! So much that the council never discussed we find today.

People are leaving the Church, not because of Vii, but because the Church has left them. . . ceased speaking to the deepest longing of the human heart.

Thank you Bishop for not denying us the possibility of either mass. They are both part of our faith, both part of our heritage. Both express vital truths. Thank you for not bashing Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, and thank you for not eradicating the Traditional Latin Mass. You are a voice of reason for me and you always inspire me to be a better Catholic. Thanks Bishop

Bring back the good, true and beautiful. When the NO Mass is so frequently conducted in a cheap manner, it severely undermines the Church. Church discipline is required to make the NO everything it is supposed to be ASAP! I have never been to a NO (it could be my area!) that can match a chanted TLM. The TLM Mass I attend has a huge amount of converts and is growing.

I think it was a failure. I have never seen honest and convincing arguments against traditionalist objections, and I am not just talking about the TLM, but everything. I believe the biggest problem for Vatican 2 is past Popes before the council, and holy saints and doctors of the church. It is all there for us to read. They spoke with extreme precision and clarity. An argument for Vat 2 letter of council may be argued, but that letter is not lived reality for 99.9% of catholics. Gregorian chant has pride and place, for example. When you read Pope Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI and others, there are serious warnings for the Church, and it is obvious we did not heed those warnings but let our guard down and here we are. A Pope like St. Pius X or doctor and saint like Alphonsus Ligouri, holds serious weight. In my opinion, these great men do not seem to mesh well with Congar and the like. I will stick with tradition and great saints and doctors of the Church because it is safe.

In order to know if the growth of the church in Africa and Asia was due to Vatican, it must be taken into account the population growth of those continents and know whether the growth is proportional or not to that. For example, between 1980 and 2015, population in Africa grew from (roughly) 476 million to 1182 million - this means an increase of approximately 2,48x. For the same period of time, the number of catholics in Africa increased by 2.38x. These are rough estimates, and even though the growth rate of catholics in Africa appears lower than the population growth of that same continent given these numbers, during the same time period, the benefit of the doubt should be given, but there are no doubts that if it isn't lower, then it is at least proportionate. Therefore, given this, how can one infer from this that the church in Africa grew because of the second Vatican council, while at the same time, and as of right now, we are witnessing a monumental decline in the number of catholics in the countries who were mostly catholic (over 95% of the total population) before the second Vatican council was implemented?

Bishop Robert Barron, I am from IL and lived in Mundelein, born in Joliet. I pray unceasingly for IL and my family, friends, and all who live there.

Not a catholic but i am 29 and came to faith in christ over the last 10 years. I think a big answer to why did we resist vatican 2 is that with so much hatred for the traditions of the west in the west, to have the traditions of a pillar of the west change is terrifying. I have found my way to joy and peace in my life through finding the traditions of the west and this is why i see the latin mass more appealing as someone interested on the outside.

Cardinal George once said that, with the exception of inventing lots of jobs for lay people to do during Mass, we have not even begun to have any interior active participation, desired by the Council. And when it comes to the task of the laity to sanctify the temporal order, we have not begun that either.

As a convert I came into the Church long after Vatican II so know no other form of catholisism. I pose this thought, if Vatican II had not happened, what would our Church look like today? Would it be "failing" even worse or growing world wide as even North American's seem to be falling away. A very good friend who is protestant has voiced the same concerns (fears) about his Christian denomination. It's becoming a secular world I fear.

It appears to me Catholicism in Africa is more in line with pre Councilior doctrinal and praxis orthodoxy. This is based soley upon having read Cardinal Sarah's wonderful book "God or Nothing" and observing African immigrant Catholics who now attend Mass in the States who appear to me to exhibit a greater degree of reverence and devotion than large numbers of their American brothers and sisters (there being more who will kneel to receive communion on the tongue, for instance). Of course, this does not answer the question my observation raises; namely, is catholicism in Africa actually preached and practiced in a manner that is more preconcilior or postconcilior?

I’ve got an idea re: not going back to mid-20th century Catholic Church in America: competition. Let the offering of the Mass as it was offered in mid-20th century America compete against the Novus Ordo. Let the faithful choose. This is a similar response to those who say we can never go back to a gold standard. I say, let gold compete against fiat and let Americans decide. Let all be decided in true freedom and under the banner of Heaven.

Vatican II was supposed to be pastoral, but it did nothing to improve opportunities for single Catholics to meet the opposite sex. Today Europe faces demographic winter, and the Pope has managed to notice it. Could you please comment on this.

Thank you Bishop Barron and Brandon Vogt. This is a hot topic in my family. So many young people seem to prefer TLM. I certainly do understand their criticisms and concerns of NO. HOWEVER, I LOVE that they want to return to The Church and follow the faith! I do not really understand why Parishes can't have a Latin Mass at 9am and NO at the other times. I also recall my mother, father, Grandmother, and numerous Irish aunts and uncles arguing about Vatican II which I did not understand as a child. I'm going to have to watch/ listen to this again, but I appreciate you addressing this issue. Would you do a Part II (yup, I saw it) and address the concerns of Mass of the Ages?? Please. please. My son believes every word in Mass of the Ages.

My 2c as a young guy (34) converted from a protestant denomination. V2 gave us mass in the vernacular. That only happened a few hundred years too late! haha. It got us a new emphasis on the laity studying scripture. Such a good thing. We got a new emphasis on evangelization which Jesus asked us to do. It focused on building community relationships - nowadays we have ACTS retreats and tons of great stuff. BUT, V2 did mess one really big thing up. The church in the west is in decline (except Africa) especially where the V2 implimentation has been "strange"... We can't hide that elephant in the room. SO, perhaps not in the documents themselves is there anathema, but in the spirit that came out from it something went terribly wrong. I think what went most wrong was - we abandoned our tradition and tried to hide who we are in the name of ecumensim. Then we lost belief in the real presence of the eucharist. When we lost that, we lost clarity of truth and wisdom which comes from God through the eucharist and everything has snowballed from there in the church. Protestants lost that belief early on regarding the eucharist and immediately splintered into hundreds of denominations if you look at the history and timing of it all. As soon as they denied the real presence, division ensued. Here is an idea Bishop Barron. On special church days, holy days of obligation for example..lets take mainstream new-order churches and do a latin mass at them, with all the incense and prayers and traditional hymns. Let only the priest give the eucharist, and have people line up on their knees around the raised steps of the altar to receive it. In every church where the architecture is still reasonably feasible to do this kind of mass of course (one of the churches I go to is an octagon like a synagogue so you couldn't really do it there, but most churches you could still flip the altar around and just let the priest do his best and GO FOR IT! And let your average mainstream catholic attend it give them a little pamphlet so we and the priest can all butcher Latin together and stumble through the prayers. Get the choir together a couple extra times to practice some traditional hymns and chants. YOU WILL PACK THE CHURCH OUT THE DOORS I PROMISE YOU! I don't understand why Rome and the USCCB can't see this. Its like an obsessive love with the new mass and pride and denial that the old mass has anything to offer us spiritually - thats its like a dead stick in the mud. Just the opposite is true we should be promoting it! Just give it a chance! Attending latin mass was like a spiritual mega BOOSTER for me in my life (and all the young guys I've seen discover it!) Not every mass has to be a latin mass, but expose the laity to it at least once or twice a year, give them that connection to their ancestors and the history of the church and MANDATE hat it be done in every parish at least once a year. It will change everything! You should try it Bishop Barron - you are the big boss dawg now up there in Minnesota! You should do it and see what happens! My hunch is if you are the first one to give it a shot I bet you will pack the house it'll probably end up in the news all over the country and a lot of other Bishops are gonna start trying it too if they see you do it. And at the very least you will certainly put a big ol' grin on JPII and Pope Benedict's face in heaven. Thats worth something! Shalom!

Imagine, a council thinking they can improve the Mass better than the Holy Spirit. The level of hubris is astounding

A lot of people are talking about the later implementations of V2. The best documentary i have seen on this so far are the videos from Mass of the Ages. It goes over very well the changes that occurred.

Well said Bishop Barron, and thank you.😊

Thanks to Bishop Barron for reading my books!

The biggest gulf in misunderstanding I’ve seen is that when most everyday people say “Vatican II”, they mean the changes that the typical normie Catholic would have seen in parish life in the 1960s. Most people outside of the philosophy/theology crowd have no awareness of whatever documents the Vatican published at whatever date. Intellectuals typically see their faith as an intellectual or philosophical project, from which culture, customs, and practices extend as corollaries. The average everyday Catholic of 1965 saw the faith as a deposit of beliefs, traditions, cultural hallmarks, and a way of life (especially when it came to having many children). Then all of a sudden priests and other representatives of the church came along in the years after 65/70 and told them all that stuff wasn’t strictly speaking necessary. As a result, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, that deposit of faith/culture was swiftly abandoned and, seemingly systematically, Catholic families across the West lost their faith

Minute 23 is the perfect example of why VII failed. Declaring Catholic culture "defunct" created a void in the Church, and that void was filled by the World.

The historic Protestant churches also declined in the west and boomed in Africa in the last half of the 20th century; so it seems that Vatican 2 was not really responsible for either the decline or the growth, but other factors entirely

Vatican II was possibly a good thing in the 1960s for the Twentieth Century ... however we are now in the 21stC. Odd to see/hear people trying to drag the RCs into the 1960s.

I was 7 when Vatican II came about. I loved the Latin masses. I have always felt bad to this day they removed that from Mass. Back then, you could attend Mass in any country and be able to participate. Now, unless you happen to speak the language of the country you are visiting, you silently participate. Sad.

I've felt that there is a disconnect between the ancient mystical church which was alive and active for centuries and which produced so many authentic saints and the life of the Church as expressed in the liturgy and Catholic community - which hardly emphasizes the life of prayer and contemplation at all. It's as if one can be rescued by the sacramental alone, hence the crisis of the living body - the emphasis on the sacrament exceeds by far the emphasis on one's own striving for salvation. It's as if the Church is afraid to come out and say, as the gospels clearly demonstrate - that you have to work on your own salvation. This is also the instruction that we receive from so many who did that hard work and were rewarded with the abiding peace of Christ. For most of us, our satisfactions continue to be material - not spiritual. The spiritual hunger, IMO is not being sated in sacramental observation and feel good homilies.

Not just a failure, but an absolute abysmal failure that they refuse to admit.

The good shepard. Thank you Bishop🙏🏻

Bishop Barron has stated that V2 itself wasn't a failure, but rather the way in which it was implemented was a failure. Curious to see if his opinion has changed.

I think the analogy to Nicaea is so on point.

The church threw out mysticism

For most people, the context of Catholicism does not extend much beyond the boundaries of their parish, and is limited to Sunday Mass. When liturgy became so silly and trivialized, it would be hard to expect people to take anything seriously

This was great, thank you. I particularly enjoyed the comments on the Universal Church and the role of the Church outside of Europe in evangelization. As a tiny example, I am very grateful for the influence of a quiet academic from Tanzania who briefly worked as a priest in a north Dublin parish. A short conversation when preparing for my father's funeral some years ago led me to the St Augustine's Confessions. This among other things has been important in my slow and faltering return to faith.

The jury is back: Guilty

It was a complete failure. We let the communists and Freemasons change the faith to be more Protestant and worldly. “Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock.”

The documents of V2 need to be revisited and its errors corrected.

I became a Catholic about 10 years ago. My hope, was to be attending a Latin Mass. It us the most beautiful celebration of Christ, in my opinion. Yet, it is so far removed, that it is sad. My opinion, is that lack of appeal in the Norvus Ordo, is the reason that many people have left the Church. I hope one day, the Church will return back to the Latin Mass. I'm not saying the Norvus Ordo is bad, to be clear. Although, this new music, that is sung in mass, much of it written by protestants, is absolutely atrocious.

Brothers and sisters! Spread the mission! Bring people to God! Be prepared for discussions and arguments! Share the Word on Fire mission! We are to spread the gospel and truth throughout a world that rejects it!

Padre Pio..".follow the faith of your fathers." (Pre 1859)

In the U.S. Vatican 2 changes were not explained well at the parish level.

I’d love to see Bishop Barron engage with Timothy Flanders on Vatican 2. Flanders is very nuanced in his praise and critique. It would be engaging with the best of the trad side. And the good bishop likes to engage with the best.

As a Protestant my biggest criticism of Catholicism was that the Mass was in Latin and that Catholics didn't read the Bible. The first time I actually attended Mass I was shocked that it was in English, that they had 3 readings followed by a short homily, and that the entire Liturgy revolved around the Bible. It was so much more reverential than our Protestant services. I don't think I would have felt an attraction to a Mass that I couldn't understand or a Liturgy that I could not have understood as Biblical because it wasn't in a languageI understood. Is TLM better? I don't know. I do know that I want to belong to one holy, catholic and apostolic church, not the fragmentation I saw in the Protestant community.

The ecclesio-managerial revolution and it's consequences has been a disaster for the human race.

God Bless you Bishop!

It certainly did not fulfill its hopes. But the bar was set pretty high. With respect to liturgical reform, I think it was a tragic failure. It does not inspire young Catholics, and the Church competes poorly for the attention of moderns.

I would recommend people read Michael Davies "Liturgical Time bombs in Vatican II" as a primer to understanding the malice by some involved with the Council. Davies other books and pamphlets are masterful. A more in depth 12 volume series would be Atila Sinke Guimareas "Eli,Eli, Lamma Sabachtani" which begins with the book "In The Murky Waters of Vatican II" And an essential theological study would be Romano Amerio's. Iota Unum. A study of changes in the Catholic a church in the 20th century.

What an amazing discussion! Thank you Bishop Barron! I appreciate you reframing the question and putting it on the dissenters. The cure for this resistance and dissent to VII and the Magesterium is Obedience and we need a whole lot more of it.

I for one appreciate going to Mass and actually understanding what is going on in English.

Tridentine Mass in ecclesial Latin, and Tridentine Mass in vernacular; two liturgies each day for the yearly calendar; one liturgy in official universal language, one liturgy in the vernacular. Best of both worlds, and no change in the praxis of the liturgy. Saints Cyril and methodius didnt need to "reform or renew" Chrysostom or Basil's liturgy; they just gifted the slavs ecclesial slavonic in place of greek

Viva la TLM.

I’m so glad Bishop Barron addressed this I’ve been in the dark about Vatican II. God Bless you. 🙏 St. Padre Pio pray for us.

I read the McGreevy book too. I am keeping up with the bishop and am pleased with myself

Thank you both! Very enlightening. Im going to pick up The Paschal Mystery!

"We have to be in engagement with the culture that's actually there." What if there's an ever-growing cry from within that culture for the beautiful Latin Mass? Do we engage with that, or suppress it and brush it off as some cooky, ultra-conservative fringe?

Vatican II reached out to modernity and modernity didn’t reach back. Vatican II turned Catholicism beige. The church may have declined to the same numbers it is today but there would be adoration for the Eucharist and the sacraments would be revered.

God willing I'll be in the conversation 🌹🧿

Vatican II: "Lets change the Mass so that more people come!" How did that work out?

We will know from its fruits: Massive decline in Church attendance Catholics no ling believing in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist Immodesty of dresses among church goers. massive apostasy Catholics generally stopped going to Confession. Catholic Church lost more souls after the council. Reform was needed. But it was horribly done. Imagine, banning kneeling and receiving Eucharist on tongue tell us, is this an epic win?

Even if a particular medicine is very efficacious against a disease, if the patient does not take it, no healing will happen

If you see Vatican 11 as such a positive step forward with the changes it brought about in Liturgy and the Mass please explain why did Jesus send His Blessed Mother to warn us about danger in changing the Mass and Liturgy? God Bless

I was attracted to the title and had to endure three minutes of updates on Bishop Barron's reading list. 🙄

This is a very difficult matter. Is the decline of the Church in the West a result of Vatican II? Is the boom in Africa and Asia? One's answer largely says more about one's own biases. From what I have seen of the council documents, there is no heresy. That said, I think Douthat makes a good point that so many changes so quickly undermined the Church's legitimacy in the eyes of many. Undoubtedly, the will of the Bishops even at the time was that reform was needed. The way I see it, some reform would have been nice, but too much was lost in translation. In Asia and Africa where the older order of the Mass was unknown, this didn't matter so much. In the West, however, the Church was dramatically effected for the worse.

No doubt a massive topic and no better Bishop to approach this discussion with sympathy, skill and clear common sense. As a former student of Bishop Barron, his theological and spiritual insight continues to instruct and inspire in my ecclesial life and commitment. I believe we are in a cold civil war within the life of the Church and this, regrettably, is universal. my own study of theology and experience as a Catholic and priest inform this opinion. As I perceive it, there are two approaches to the massive shifts in Catholic culture since the time of the council, these hermeneutics are two: reform or revolution or as Benedict XVI proposes; rupture or continuity. Left to ones own reflection, it is not obvious at times to discern the spirit of revolution or authentic reform. The latter is expressed in authentic magisterium, which providentially is written down. Authentic reform in liturgy, faith formation, evangelization and holiness of life are not lacking in the Church.....but only those places that embrace the reform in humble listening to the Word of God in the stream of authentic Catholic doctrine in the full teaching of the Church. We have got to begin with a fresh reading of the Council....by reading the documents....i could go on....all is not well...the Council is being manipulated and simply ignored in its teaching by revolutionaries....lets reform

A massive failure that keeps on giving...

We have no idea how many MORE people would’ve left the church, especially in progressive/Western areas, if it wasn’t for Vatican II. It’s very important to have perspective on causes and effects.