Anyone else out there who is a fan of Vatican II?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2cats
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
2

2cats

Guest
Recent convert here. During RCIA, when I read about the Second Vatican Council, I was so impressed and excited about it that I took Blessed John XXIII as my confirmation saint. (They said it was OK to take a Blessed.) But when I read the postings on CAF, it seems a large number of posters want to make Vatican II the scapegoat for anything going wrong within the Church. I’m feeling totally outnumbered. Just wondering if there’s anyone else out there like me.

I realize this post may be viewed by some as an invitation to let loose on everything you think Vatican II got wrong, but please restrain yourselves if you can! I’ve heard your voices loud and clear on these boards - just wondering if I’m the only one who doesn’t feel that way! 🙂
 
2cats said:
Recent convert here. During RCIA, when I read about the Second Vatican Council, I was so impressed and excited about it that I took Blessed John XXIII as my confirmation saint. (They said it was OK to take a Blessed.) But when I read the postings on CAF, it seems a large number of posters want to make Vatican II the scapegoat for anything going wrong within the Church. I’m feeling totally outnumbered. Just wondering if there’s anyone else out there like me.

I realize this post may be viewed by some as an invitation to let loose on everything you think Vatican II got wrong, but please restrain yourselves if you can! I’ve heard your voices loud and clear on these boards - just wondering if I’m the only one who doesn’t feel that way! 🙂
Click to expand...
I have several comments:
  1. it is clear from some people’s comment that they have never read the documents; yet they are full of opinions, particularly negative ones.
  2. it is futher clear that some people have never been trained in the art of critical thinking.
  3. it is also clear that some people see history through “rose colored glasses” and have zilch for any knowledge of, let alone any understanding of the history of the Church since, oh, say the time of Trent up to the time of the start of Vatican 2.
  4. coupled with that is a failure to understand something fairly simple: the documents were not meant for the average person in the pews. Not that the average person should not read them, but rather that the documents were written by the bishops - some 2000 of them - who, under the direction of the Pope - wrote the guidelines for the leaders of the Church (hint - the bishops) and their assitants (hint - the priests) to guide the Church into the future.
  5. in addition, there are those who insist that the documents are not doctrine or dogma, nor infallible, therefore subject to rejection or extreme criticism, all the while forgetting that 2000 bishops acting in conjunction with the Pope is an excellent definition of the Magisterium in action, and that the Church is protected by the Holty Spirit from error when teaching about Faith and Morals.
  6. they further presume that people who do not have graduate studies at a minimum (and I consider a Masters an absolute minimum) have almost no foundation upon which to criticize the work of the Magisterium, and further forget that our history is replete with scholars with PhDs and further work who have succeeded in "going down the rabbit hole; and yet they presume to critique the work of people (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) with far greater eduction and experience.
  7. and lastly, they confuse the work of the Church with the rebellion of some priests, bishops and theologians who have gone off in their own directions and are clearly not following the documents, and they presume the documents are the cause of that. A simple post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument, but one they follow blindly.
 
2cats said:
Recent convert here. During RCIA, when I read about the Second Vatican Council, I was so impressed and excited about it that I took Blessed John XXIII as my confirmation saint. (They said it was OK to take a Blessed.) But when I read the postings on CAF, it seems a large number of posters want to make Vatican II the scapegoat for anything going wrong within the Church. I’m feeling totally outnumbered. Just wondering if there’s anyone else out there like me.

I realize this post may be viewed by some as an invitation to let loose on everything you think Vatican II got wrong, but please restrain yourselves if you can! I’ve heard your voices loud and clear on these boards - just wondering if I’m the only one who doesn’t feel that way! 🙂
Click to expand...
I’m a convert too! 🙂 I have not read the Vatican II documents, but I’d like to someday. However, I think that people on CAF don’t so much dislike the documents, as they dislike the anarchy that seems to have prevailed after the release. For those of us not around during this time of change, I think it’s hard to imagine. But, some priests and bishops made a lot of really bad choices after the release of the documents and I think that’s what people lament. Of course, I don’t read much in the “Traditional” section on here, so maybe I’m missing people blatantly disregarding the ACTUAL documents. 🤷
 
Vatican II is fantastic.

The way many people in the Church have interpreted it is not.

For example, it says that priests shall not deny communion to a woman who is not wearing a veil. Fantastic! So most woman stopped wearing veils completely. Not fantastic. That pretty much summarizes Vatican II and what the liberal Catholics did with it, in a nutshell. From what I know about it, anyway.
 
It occurs to me to wonder if those who began misrepresenting Vatican II, starting while the council was still in session, could be considered fans of Vatican II, or underminers of Vatican II.
 
I’m a fan of Vatican II, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. That doesn’t make me a proponent of everything that anyone might try to read into any of them.
 
You’re not outnumbered. It’s just that most Catholics aren’t as vocal as those who would return to a Pre-Vatican II Church. Sound and fury…
 
FickleFreckled said:
You’re not outnumbered. It’s just that most Catholics aren’t as vocal as those who would return to a Pre-Vatican II Church. Sound and fury…
Click to expand...
Agreed! I am also a fan of the Second Vatican Council. I admire Popes John XXIII and Paul VI greatly and feel sure that both will someday be recognized as saints of the Church for their leadership during the years of the Council and its aftermath.
 
I’m probably a big fat fish out of water on CAF because I applaud everything that was done by Vatican II and in the name of Vatican II – having lived in the Church both before and after.

You’re not alone here – but you must realize that you’re very much outnumbered by this conservative community. I mostly just sit on my hands and read the posts, marveling at the vast difference between members of the same Church.

I personally think the infinitely merciful, infinitely good God is big enough and loving enough to embrace all flavors of faithful members of His church.

Maybe we should create a secret handshake, or something. :
 
I’m young, so I don’t know the pre-Vatican II Church. However, to be honest, I’ve read, not all, but a good portion of the Catechism and have engaged in apologetics both on and off of this site (and real apologetics with people who had opposing viewpoints, not two Catholics arguing against each other in Theologhy class where one is forced to take the opposing virewpoint for the purposes of debate), and as I understand the teachings of the Church I have pretty much no issues with any of them.
 
2cats said:
Recent convert here. During RCIA, when I read about the Second Vatican Council, I was so impressed and excited about it that I took Blessed John XXIII as my confirmation saint. (They said it was OK to take a Blessed.) But when I read the postings on CAF, it seems a large number of posters want to make Vatican II the scapegoat for anything going wrong within the Church. I’m feeling totally outnumbered. Just wondering if there’s anyone else out there like me.

I realize this post may be viewed by some as an invitation to let loose on everything you think Vatican II got wrong, but please restrain yourselves if you can! I’ve heard your voices loud and clear on these boards - just wondering if I’m the only one who doesn’t feel that way! 🙂
Click to expand...
I would bet dollars to dimes that not 1 in 100 people who complain about “Vatican II” have ever read the post-conciliar documents. I’ll be fewer than 1 in 20 know they even exist.

VC2 was a gift of God through His Church. That some have used the so-called “spirit of vatican II” as an excuse to create problems is no way changes that fact.

Ranting about VC2 is a fairly good barometer of a person’s knowledge of the Church.
 
CAnnElizabeth said:
I’m probably a big fat fish out of water on CAF because I applaud everything that was done by Vatican II and in the name of Vatican II – having lived in the Church both before and after.

You’re not alone here – but you must realize that you’re very much outnumbered by this conservative community. I mostly just sit on my hands and read the posts, marveling at the vast difference between members of the same Church.

I personally think the infinitely merciful, infinitely good God is big enough and loving enough to embrace all flavors of faithful members of His church.

Maybe we should create a secret handshake, or something. :
Click to expand...
I don’t think blaming the ills of the Church on VC2 is indicative of being “conservative.” I think it’s indicative of being ignorant about the Church and VC2.
 
I believe you’re right, CAnnElizabeth. The condition of the heart’s more important than the pomp and ceremony, which can unfortunately become the focus. I was raised Pre-Vatican II and when not genuflecting deeply enough or confessing the exact number of times you committed a sin becomes a concern, it’s more like OCD than devotion. Jesus wasn’t that way.
 
I’m of the opinion that there was some good and some bad.

I’ve come to believe that the ones who complain the loudest would complain about something else if V2 did not happen.
 
FickleFreckled said:
I believe you’re right, CAnnElizabeth. The condition of the heart’s more important than the pomp and ceremony, which can unfortunately become the focus. I was raised Pre-Vatican II and when not genuflecting deeply enough or confessing the exact number of times you committed a sin becomes a concern, it’s more like OCD than devotion. Jesus wasn’t that way.
Click to expand...
That’s something I truly dislike. An attempt to set-up the false dichotomy of “either we have pomp and ceremony OR we can love and worship God and His Son.” That false dichotomy is horribly corrosive and it’s been used by “both sides.”

One extreme side says an interest in the “externals” necessarily means we are taking our eyes off of God. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! One way we come to know, love and worship God is through these externals. A great interest and appreciation for these externals can be very healthy for our souls. They can be of great help in facilitating and strengthening our faith.

The other extreme side suggests that if the externals aren’t a certain way, or worse the externals must be a certain way then our faith and spiritual nourishment must necessarily suffer. Again, WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
 
boatbearer,
I think you’re looking for that dichotomy in my post but if you’ll look a little closer, it’s not there.
 
I like it. but those were the first rites I was taught. now I find myself prefering the 1960’s rites. I want to learn them in english and latin.
 
FickleFreckled said:
I believe you’re right, CAnnElizabeth. The condition of the heart’s more important than the pomp and ceremony, which can unfortunately become the focus. I was raised Pre-Vatican II and when not genuflecting deeply enough or confessing the exact number of times you committed a sin becomes a concern, it’s more like OCD than devotion. Jesus wasn’t that way.
Click to expand...
I heard an explanation of the old form by a priest once and that’s what I got. I remember hearing about regulations on how far hands had to be away from each other while apart (under pain of venial sin I believe) and then the whole ritual with the elevation of the host and chalice without letting go of the fingers (under pain of mortal sin I believe), I just started laughing. I know that’s not really the response people would like, but to me it sounded a bit ridicules. It sounds like a mathematician wrote it; it’s very legalistic.

I’m not saying “do whatever”, just maybe a little application of the KISS principle. “Hands extended” is good enough, you don’t need “hands extended at exact shoulder length”. “Elevate/show Host” is good, you don’t need to have a confusing and logistically difficult rubric. The focus shouldn’t really be on how many times/which way the insensor was swung, or whether or not a knee hit the floor when genuflecting, or whether fingers were together the whole time because in my mind that’s turing it into a drama production (and I’ve been in a half dozen of those). I think simple can be just as reverent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top