Anyone here reject Vatican II?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Curious11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pnewton said:
I still really believe the reason for its acceptance is more lust and less feminism. I think it is only a symptom of a much deeper problem.
Click to expand...
Of the 7 sins, Pride is the one we always tend to underestimate. The others, including Lust, are also a factor but less. I also think we tend to overestimate the power of “The Flesh” and underestimate the dangers of “The World”. The media reminds us, every hour or so, of the dangers or potential evils of “The Flesh”. How often do they remind us of the dangers of “The World”, or “The Devil”?
 
No, I do not reject the Vatican II. And yes, I do think the Holy Spirit moved in that council.

However, like @Genesis315, I think it is possibly a failed council. I don’t think that means that the Holy Spirit was not behind it. It just means that the implementation did not pan out as it should have.

This is nothing new. There have been other councils like that. For example, The Council of Basel, Ferrara and Florence attempted reunion with the Eastern Orthodox, but ultimately that didn’t work out. Also, that council as well as Lateran V attempted to reform the Church. If they had succeeded, maybe we would not have had the Protestant Reformation. I accept both of these councils as divinely inspired even though they clearly failed at their stated objectives. I think these two councils are very clear examples how even ecumenical councils can be stalled by human sin.

I guess that is the mystery of how we have free will and at the same time divine providence is operating and guiding History.
 
Last edited:
I would like to add to my previous post, Vatican II does not have to remain unimplemented (aka reform of the reform). The council of Trent for example took almost twenty years to finish, including several interruptions. There was surely times when some thought it was a failure. That was until Pope St. Pius V got onto the scene.
 
Bartholo said:
I would like to add to my previous post, Vatican II does not have to remain unimplemented (aka reform of the reform).
Click to expand...
Ideally the pope and bishops could
  • build on the strengths of VII,
  • point out where implementation was faulty, and fix it;
  • point out where implementation was really someone pushing some private agenda not intended by VII, and fix it;
  • try to implement those parts of VII that were implemented incompletely, or not at all.
Well, mostly this won’t happen.

The problem is that popes and bishops have far less power than they had in the 1960s. The main opposition is from the Left, but in recent years the Right has also helped contribute to a climate of suspicion towards Catholic authority. This makes it much harder to “repair” anything.

I predict the next pope will be a younger Pope Benedict. He will let certain problem areas drive themselves into extinction (think liberal religious orders). He will support new initiatives to teach doctrine, and newer religious orders. He won’t re-fight the battles of the past and will ignore any abuses that are merely annoying. He has to pick his battles.

The world has changed more since Vatican II than it did between Trent and Vatican II. Do you think even 1% of Catholics under 60 could give a coherent comment on any of the documents? Do you think even 5% could name what decade Vatican II was in?
 
Last edited:
English does not equal not proper.

This is why people get annoyed with traditionalists - because the traditionalists say that things like using english hymns = improper liturgical music.
 
commenter said:
I predict the next pope will be a younger Pope Benedict. He will let certain problem areas drive themselves into extinction (think liberal religious orders). He will support new initiatives to teach doctrine, and newer religious orders. He won’t re-fight the battles of the past and will ignore any abuses that are merely annoying. He has to pick his battles.
Click to expand...
What a prediction! How do you think so?
The world has changed more since Vatican II than it did between Trent and Vatican II. Do you think even 1% of Catholics under 60 could give a coherent comment on any of the documents? Do you think even 5% could name what decade Vatican II was in?
Click to expand...
You are probably correct. A lot has happened in the past 50 years
 
Bartholo said:
40.png
commenter:
I predict the next pope will be a younger Pope Benedict. He will let certain problem areas drive themselves into extinction (think liberal religious orders). He will support new initiatives to teach doctrine, and newer religious orders. He won’t re-fight the battles of the past and will ignore any abuses that are merely annoying. He has to pick his battles.
Click to expand...
What a prediction! How do you think so?
Click to expand...
I am just an ordinary layman, no special expertise. The part about the next pope being a “young Pope Benedict” is perhaps wishful thinking. The rest is observation. There is no doubt that the pope and bishops have to “pick their battles”. They will be too busy dealing with contemporary problems than dealing with what happened, or should have happened at VII. They will probably ignore annoying mild abuses, especially if they involve radical religious orders that have 20 deaths for every recruit.

Sometimes I wonder if those who strenuously “defend” Vatican II against every criticism, or those fixated on the “errors” of Vatican II, are both less and less relevant to the great majority of Catholics under 50 or so.
 
Last edited:
I reject the sanitized, sugar-coated teachings of the church, most of which largely originated with VII – especially the platitudes and ignorance that infest Catholic schools.
 
sonofbarry said:
I reject the sanitized, sugar-coated teachings of the church, most of which largely originated with VII – especially the platitudes and ignorance that infest Catholic schools.
Click to expand...
When I read the documents nowadays, I don’t find them to be sanitized or sugar coated. When I used to read my kids’ religion texts a few decades ago, I did find them to be worthless in many cases. I tried my best to communicate to my kids the doctrinal content that was systematically eliminated after VII, not a result of VII. The same could be said about my diocesan newspaper, or many sermons taken from the daily newspaper editorials.

Other than the document on liturgy, most of the documents simply described changes already in progress in the 1960s. The decree on Laity reflects the more active role some laity had been playing in the decades leading up to the council. The decrees on Religious Life, Social Communications, Education, reflect where the Church, and/or society, was already moving.

One might complain that the documents focused too much on “here’s where we have come since WWI” and failed to predict what was coming soon after. But then hardly anyone else predicted the massive impact of the Internet, pornography, breakdown of marriage, gay “marriage”, abortion, and the astonishing passivity of Catholics in the face of those evils.

The Documents never predicted the attack on Reason in secular society, or the attack on doctrine from many inside the Church. The documents never predicted the extreme concentration of power in the media, almost all of which is anti-Christian. But nobody else predicted it either.

So it is a waste of time to criticize the Council for what happened afterwards. The Council documents are mildly useful today as an outline. But our attention should be on addressing the issues of 2018. Every minute spent attacking Vatican II is a minute taken away from finding solutions to 2018.
 
Last edited:
The fake “blame it on Vatican II” comments will continue while ignoring what was planned and the organized attacks from inside and outside the Church by radicals, dissidents and Anarchists after Vatican II ended in 1965. I watched it unfold. I heard the strangers as they appeared in our neighborhoods. Their message was clear: abandon the Church, abandon what your parents taught you and live like we do because for a long time, faithful Catholics made them uncomfortable about doing wrong. It made them think twice. They didn’t like that.
 
Last edited:
Jacob4135 said:
That makes you a sede, just saying
Click to expand...
Rather than putting labels on people, better to let them express their ideas and feelings on CAF. A lot of people have been stereotyped, as if “traditionalists are all alike”. I would rather let people air their disagreements, and be open to new ideas or explanations here.
 
Last edited:
There are 2 mistakes we can make about history.

One mistake is to ignore it; to be oblivious of the trends before, during and after the Council, and the effect the Council might have had, and effect it actually did have.

The other mistake is to overemphasize it. Liberals make it the turning point in history, second only to the Nativity. They claim before the Council laity were not permitted to read and write, etc but now it is a totally new dawn. Conservatives blame the Council for causing everything bad since 1960. Certain religious organizations use “secrets” about the Council, and for that matter secrets and coverups about Fatima, to boost donations and website hits.

The problem with the fixation with the Council is that some who should be fighting the Church’s struggles against the evils of 2018 are instead remaining apart, still obsessing about that Council (and Fatima) coverups, censorship, secrets, conspiracies, agendas of the 1960s. Easier than fighting the dragons of 2018.
 
Last edited:
Yea, but that’s far different than the ‘Every pope since pius xii is invalid’ sede. There’s space to work.
 
commenter said:
Rather than putting labels on people, better to let them express their ideas and feelings on CAF. A lot of people have been stereotyped, as if “traditionalists are all alike”.
Click to expand...
But if someone says “I’m not a sede, but the Chair of Peter is occupied by a usurper,” they really are contradicting themselves.
 
This quote is interesting, because it tends to refute those who say this problem began as a result of VII. Of course not, it was underway, but under the radar, certainly as far back as 1950 when Pope Pius referred to it. The attack on Humanae Vitae for instance was so well coordinated, it must have taken years to develop. Not from VII.
 
Are they? I honestly dont know… Since sede comes from ‘sede vacantus’ ie the seat is empty in Latin, even if there is a usurper pope , the seat is still filled, right…?
 
Last edited:
Just because you prefer tradition doesn’t mean you should leave or rebel against the authority Jesus established. Israel asked to have a king like the nations around them, and God, granted them King Saul through Samuel. Can you imagine if Samuel said, “Well, God said to appoint Saul the king over you, but I think it’s better to just keep following God without a king like we have been doing, so I’m going to disobey God, and shame on you all for feeling like you need a king.” God knows what is best for everyone, not me.

Edit: This thread reminds me of the passage where Jesus heals on the sabbath. We can not be so hung up on tradition as to defy God.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top