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

[DebChris]

Vatican II was convened to bring the Church into the modern world, not to conform to the modern world, but rather to bring the truth of Christ and His gospel into the world in which we live.
Vatican II is often criticized because of the outward changes that have taken place. As many on this thread have already pointed out, few of these criticisms come from those who have actually read the documents.
Change is never easy. Personal growth only takes place through change. We are called to continuous growth in our Faith. It is still the same Church that it was before Vatican II.

 

[mangy_dog]

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!

Nope.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I think it’s rather a blanket generalization and oversimplification to claim that ‘conservatives’ are 'against Vatican II.

I’m a conservative person and I believe I’m traditional in outlook, but I have absolutely no problems with the actual documents of Vatican II as they were written and as they can be read as conforming with all other authoritative documents. (and yes, I’ve read them. Imagine.)

And I have always striven to express that the difficulties which arose in the Church are not 'because of Vatican II" but rather due to a very complex societal situation which the Church ‘reflected’, as well as to misunderstandings (benign) and possible misrepresentations (not benign) of what the documents said.

The documents never called for an abrogation of Latin in the vernacular Mass, for nuns to change habits for ‘polyester pantsuits’, for the jettisoning of popular piety practices, for a host of other practices done in the 'spirit of Vatican II". . .so all these things which came about came not because of Vatican II but 'in spite of" Vatican II. IOW, just because people misread and went wild with the documents (and other things) related to the Council doesn’t mean the Council caused it, or that the same things might not have occurred (or worse) had the Council not convened. Yes, there are ambiguities and problems but in every case I have seen in the documents there is a way in which the wording can be understood in a perfectly orthodox way. It’s not the fault of the Council if they are presented by individuals incorrectly. The Church itself when it comes to faith and morals we can absolutely trust.

 

[bankerdavid]

I think it’s rather a blanket generalization and oversimplification to claim that ‘conservatives’ are 'against Vatican II.

I’m a conservative person and I believe I’m traditional in outlook, but I have absolutely no problems with the actual documents of Vatican II as they were written and as they can be read as conforming with all other authoritative documents. (and yes, I’ve read them. Imagine.)

And I have always striven to express that the difficulties which arose in the Church are not 'because of Vatican II" but rather due to a very complex societal situation which the Church ‘reflected’, as well as to misunderstandings (benign) and possible misrepresentations (not benign) of what the documents said.

The documents never called for an abrogation of Latin in the vernacular Mass, for nuns to change habits for ‘polyester pantsuits’, for the jettisoning of popular piety practices, for a host of other practices done in the 'spirit of Vatican II". . .so all these things which came about came not because of Vatican II but 'in spite of" Vatican II. IOW, just because people misread and went wild with the documents (and other things) related to the Council doesn’t mean the Council caused it, or that the same things might not have occurred (or worse) had the Council not convened. Yes, there are ambiguities and problems but in every case I have seen in the documents there is a way in which the wording can be understood in a perfectly orthodox way. It’s not the fault of the Council if they are presented by individuals incorrectly. The Church itself when it comes to faith and morals we can absolutely trust.

Amen!

 

[distracted]

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!

***you don’t know waht it was like being Catholic before all those changes were imlemented…

i hate the changes… !!***

 

[bankerdavid]

***you don’t know waht it was like being Catholic before all those changes were imlemented…

i hate the changes… !!***

Most of those changes were not a result of Vatican II. They were the result of people interpreting Vatican II. It will all shake out in the end.

 

[distracted]

Most of those changes were not a result of Vatican II. They were the result of people interpreting Vatican II. It will all shake out in the end.

i do NOT… totally do NOT agree!!

it was planned from the begining… to destroy the Church…

so call me a wack job… i don’t care…

 

[bankerdavid]

i do NOT… totally do NOT agree!!

it was planned from the begining… to destroy the Church…

so call me a wack job… i don’t care…

Show me in the documents where it says to tear down altar rails, for priests and nuns to dress in secular clothing, and that the Latin mass is outlawed? Show me where it says that you can use guitars and tamborines in liturgical music, and that people don’t need to go to confession. Show me a change in the Church that was specifically called for in Vatican II documents that is illicit?

 

[distracted]

Show me in the documents where it says to tear down altar rails, for priests and nuns to dress in secular clothing, and that the Latin mass is outlawed? Show me where it says that you can use guitars and tamborines in liturgical music, and that people don’t need to go to confession. Show me a change in the Church that was specifically called for in Vatican II documents that is illicit?

just because A exists subsequently to B doesn’t mean B caused A

 

[bankerdavid]

just because A exists subsequently to B doesn’t mean B caused A

Exactly! So just because some people interpreted a document one way doesn’t mean that’s what was written or intended. Read the documents and learn what they say and don’t say before you flip over what Vatican II did and didn’t do. And FYI, there was nearly the exact same turmoil in the Catholic Church when the Council of Trent was enacted and ratified. It took more than 100 years for it all to settle down.

 

[Indyann]

***you don’t know waht it was like being Catholic before all those changes were imlemented…

i hate the changes… !!***

I know what it was like being Catholic before the changes. Some, I love and some I don’t like so much.

I love hearing Mass in my native tongue.

I like being able to choose my own penance on Fridays. Though, I still don’t eat meat on Fridays, I know that I can do another penance, if I choose to.

What is most freeing, is that I no longer live in “fear of the Lord”. I still fear Him , as in awesome power of God. But I am no longer physically afraid. The love of God, took second place to “fear of the Lord”. Hell and brimstone was preached from the pulpit, seldom the love of God and our neighbor.

I love the fact that all the “booklearnin” of the Catholic Church has finally made it from my head to my heart. (maybe, I am just a slow learner, but that’s how it seems).

I like it that we are no longer bound to go to Mass at our geographical parishes. We can visit other parishes to fulfill our obligation.

What I don’t like is the abandoning of habits of a lot of sisters. I think they should wear at least a short veil to identify them as sisters.

I HATE that some priests take liberties that were not intended in saying the Mass.

I am sure theere are many more changes that I like and dislike, but that is all I can think of at the moment.

All in all Vatican II changed nothing but disciplines, and I am thankful for it.

 

[distracted]

I know what it was like being Catholic before the changes. Some, I love and some I don’t like so much.

I love hearing Mass in my native tongue.

we were always given both… in the missalette

I like being able to choose my own penance on Fridays. Though, I still don’t eat meat on Fridays, I know that I can do another penance, if I choose to.

What is most freeing, is that I no longer live in “fear of the Lord”. I still fear Him , as in awesome power of God. But I am no longer physically afraid. The love of God, took second place to “fear of the Lord”. Hell and brimstone was preached from the pulpit, seldom the love of God and our neighbor.

i guess i dont get this one… cuz… if you are right with God, why would you have excessive fear anyhow? and if you DO have fear cuz of serious sin (& its all fairly serious)…you are HEALTHY… Fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom… as it says in Proverbs and probably elsewhere… If you don’t have any feaer of God there’s something terribly wrong w/ you… Also i cant help this other thought: why would your concept of God change just cuz of some external thing like Vat II council??? I’m sorry to sound … mean or whatever… but the thought occurs to me that your thing w/ God shouldn’t change drastically just cuz of something someone says… or wahtever… We aren’t suposed to put much stock in what humans say or do anyhow…

I like it that we are no longer bound to go to Mass at our geographical parishes. We can visit other parishes to fulfill our obligation.

i don’t recall ever having a prob w/ this… My parents took us to different parishes b4 Vat II…

 

[Indyann]

we were always given both… in the missalette
i guess i dont get this one… cuz… if you are right with God, why would you have excessive fear anyhow? and if you DO have fear cuz of serious sin (& its all fairly serious)…you are HEALTHY… Fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom… as it says in Proverbs and probably elsewhere… If you don’t have any feaer of God there’s something terribly wrong w/ you… Also i cant help this other thought: why would your concept of God change just cuz of some external thing like Vat II council??? I’m sorry to sound … mean or whatever… but the thought occurs to me that your thing w/ God shouldn’t change drastically just cuz of something someone says… or wahtever… We aren’t suposed to put much stock in what humans say or do anyhow… i don’t recall ever having a prob w/ this… My parents took us to different parishes b4 Vat II…

Well, maybe it was personal quirk, that I was afraid of God.

Maybe it was because it was taught that all my non-Catholic relatives were in hell. Do you know how traumatic that was for a child?

Maybe it was because I imagined God with a big checklist. I don’t know why, I just knew, I REALLY feared God.

At one point in time, you had to attend your home parish only. I can’t remember when that changed.

I don’t remember hearing much about the mercy of God. In fact, I don’t remember of hearing much of His mercy until St. Faustina.

What do you mean we are not to put much stock in what people say?
When those people are your Priests and your teachers, I think most people put stock in what they say.

 

[distracted]

Well, maybe it was personal quirk, that I was afraid of God.

Maybe it was because it was taught that all my non-Catholic relatives were in hell. Do you know how traumatic that was for a child?

Maybe it was because I imagined God with a big checklist. I don’t know why, I just knew, I REALLY feared God.

At one point in time, you had to attend your home parish only. I can’t remember when that changed.

I don’t remember hearing much about the mercy of God. In fact, I don’t remember of hearing much of His mercy until St. Faustina.

What do you mean we are not to put much stock in what people say?
When those people are your Priests and your teachers, I think most people put stock in what they say.

mabe that’s why most people end up in Hell? Jesus said that ther are “few who find” the narrow way to eternal life… St Mt 7:13 & 21… St Lk 13:24… Listening to others is actually, now that i think of it… probably what causes most to end up there… I mean look at society… fornication rampant… adultery… divorc/remarriage… etc… “Everyone’s doing it”… must be right…

and i am not saying its easy to go against the grain of society… it is difficult to go against it and not feel alone sometime… & even lonely… even with Jesus as your best friend and all that… (saints) … but Christians must go against society’s trneds… and be “hated by all” in doing so… t hat’s what’s going to happen… hate… nobody likes someone who is different… who lives differently, etc… but thats the cross of following Jesus…

yes we should listen to our priests… if we see they are true Christians… I mean if you go to confession… for example & confess using artif b control… & your priest says there’s nothing wrong w/ that… not a sin… What do you do? keep using it??? No, you know you have sinned… the priest is wrong… If you were never taught that the Church teaches against abc… well, then it would probably be a “grace” (hmmm… ) to obey the priest?? i dont know… i probablly shouldn’t even say that… cuz objective evil is objective evil…

but in any case… you can’t blindly obey someone just cuz of what he is suposed to be… his office…

 

[distracted]

Well,I don’t remember hearing much about the mercy of God. In fact, I don’t remember of hearing much of His mercy until St. Faustina.

.

God’s mercy can be summed up in one word:

Jesus

When i am with Him in the Real Presence (in silence), i (sometimes) feel ( @ 1st ) that my sins and shortcomings make me hopeless… and yet the longer i sit There with Him the more i feel Him helping me… He does not condemn if we are repentant and open to His help…

its hard to put into words (well) what happens @ the Real Presence… but maybe you know what i mean?

All Catholics (& nonCatolics) should spend as much time There as possible… i truly believe that if you do, you are guaranteed to get to heaven… If you don’t… well, you are taking serious chances… .but that’s just my opinion… based on experience…

God bless…

 

[Indyann]

Yes, I agree with what you say about Adoration. But it was not stressed prior to Vatican II like it is today.

We did have Benediction after the High Mass,on Sunday but other than that maybe only one hour a month was there Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.

Have you noticed the proliferation of 24/7 Adoration chapels, now?

I think that began with the “Year of the Eucharist”. I would have to look up the exact year, but it is certainly after Vat.II.

The couple of years after “Humanae Vitae” was proclaimed, was a chaotic time for the Church. I think even some very good and holy priests were confused as to what to tell penitents regarding ABC until all the dust settled, so to speak. Not everything is so black and white as we would like it.

 

[distracted]

Yes, I agree with what you say about Adoration. But it was not stressed prior to Vatican II like it is today…

hmm… didnt know that… .

We did have Benediction after the High Mass,on Sunday but other than that maybe only one hour a month was there Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament…

that’s more than i get… :crying:.

Have you noticed the proliferation of 24/7 Adoration chapels, now?.

NO! but glad to hear this… .

The couple of years after “Humanae Vitae” was proclaimed, was a chaotic time for the Church. I think even some very good and holy priests were confused as to what to tell penitents regarding ABC until all the dust settled, so to speak. Not everything is so black and white as we would like it .

well, there’s always a person’s conscience… I mean that always works… well, maybe not always cuz some kill their cosncience…

but that’s why we should walk closely with God & not too much stock in humans & what they say or dont say… Jesus did say that most don’t make it to Heaven… so why listen to them?

 

[mulrooney]

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.

That’s a new one on me. Would you please provide the Vatican II document and paragraph that states priests shall not deny communion to unveiled women?

 

[DebChris]

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’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.

Those who critique or disdain Vatican II don’t really understand the historical dynamics and theological developments and preparations prior to the council, during the council or after the council. They tend to focus exclusively on areas which are problematic, but could not possibly been anticipated prior to, during or immediately after the council and many of those areas had little to do with the Council itself but the larger cultural circumstances in Europe and the U.S.

Yes,clearly there have been some problems in the church - but to blame it on Vatican II makes little sense. Vatican II was convened to re-invigorate the Church and not leave it destitute and dying. As your patron saint John XXIII said: “We beg to differ with the prognosticators of doom”.

For evidence since 1988 2.7 million people have entered the Roman Catholic Church in the U.S. If that many have entered especially during this stressful time with the sex abuse issue occupying so much attention - what will it be like once we move beyond on it?

We have much good to offer provided those on both sides of the cultural divide within the church will let down their suspicions and learn to talk recognizing that the issues are a little more complex than those on either side want to acknowledge…

A comment made by a non-Catholic to a Catholic regarding cultural changes that have taken place since the 1960’s. “You have Vatican II to blame. Who can we point to?”

I just finished reading an excellent book by the Monks of Saint Meinrad titled “The Tradition of Catholic Prayer.” It mentions in one of the chapters how priests celebrating private Masses, in which only the celebrant and servers were present, led to the common practice of the priest celebrating Mass with his back to the congregation. Members of the congregation often engaged in their own private devotions. The purpose of reorienting the Mass was to more fully involve the laity in the Eucharistic celebration.
Topics covered in the book include Old Testament Prayer and New Testament boldness, monastic contributions, the Counter-Reformation, Contemplation, Liturgy, Lectio Divina, and praying with the Saints.

 

[distracted]

Exactly! So just because some people interpreted a document one way doesn’t mean that’s what was written or intended. Read the documents and learn what they say and don’t say before you flip over what Vatican II did and didn’t do. And FYI, there was nearly the exact same turmoil in the Catholic Church when the Council of Trent was enacted and ratified. It took more than 100 years for it all to settle down.

i have to admit i haven’t read much of the documents… but in the early 70s i saw many changes… and i hated ALL of them… and i know some of them came from Vat II… Ok, so they came from priests not understanding the Vat II documents… MAYBE… but whatever… all i know is i don’t like the changes… and I KNOW that hand-hodling during the Our Father came from Vat II…

I was outsidethe church in the 80s… When i came back, everything was different…this hand shaking during the Mass… yikes!! Communion in hand…

i don’t do any of that nonsense… I go to Mass to worship and focus on God… (and co) not human beings… I have to deal with those creatures all week long… NOT always fun, to say the least…