Anyone here reject Vatican II?

[Jamie]

I usually dislike commenting on these kinds of things because this kind of argument is such a big pain for my heart and for my head lol! I believe that the issue with Vatican II is mainly that we don’t understand it. A lot of people, when Vatican II happened, just assumed a lot of rules and regulations went out the window, but they never did. For example, a lot of people think Vatican II did away with Latin mass when in reality it just made it so that it’s not the norm. Latin mass is available to anyone who still wants to participate in it. The root of the matter though is, that it is part of Our Mother. The church is Our Mother and we have absolutely no right, no right at all to question or to leave her because a teaching of her’s doesn’t suit us. It is our obligation to learn what her true teachings are, to truly learn them, and to accept them in humility. The moment we choose to form our own ideas and reject that which came from her, we do no different than Martin Luther. We have left Our Mother. I have heard of many people who reject Vatican II who then go on to learn and read the documents with the help of someone who actually knows what they are saying and completely changing their mind. Vatican II changed no dogmas, and did away with nothing. Now, do you have the right to reject Our Mother church’s teaching and follow your own ideas? Sure, of course. The thing is, you would not be a child of the church anymore. Where there is Peter, there is Christ. Always remember that. Love her, love her very much and learn her teaching, from someone who truly knows her. Vatican II is actually quite beautiful. Close your eyes, trust, and humbly obey. God bless =)! Please pray for me

 

[Jamie]

People abuse Vatican II and they, along with those that completely reject it, have failed to study the documents and to truly understand them. It’s truly very sad. We’re all after our own agenda it seems. Vatican II is actually quite beautiful, and when one actually studies the documents with help from someone who actually understands them, one comes to see how it is abused by one side, and hated by the other for absolutely no reason other than ignorance and a stubborn lack of humility. We need to learn to listen to Our Mother. We need to learn to not assume. People on one side assumed all the rules were thrown out the window ( no rule was thrown out the window), and on the other people think they’re on a massive crusade to save church teachings that have never left her core. We’ve all failed. We as her children should try harder to truly love and learn her heart.

 

[pnewton]

Then why is it, Jim oh Jim, that the vast majority of the ‘sweeping crimes’ of members of the Church have been dated to those halcyon times of the 60s and beyond?

I can answer that. Because the John Jay report was in 2004, covering the years 1950-2002. So of course the majority would be from the 60’s forward. This issue has zilch to do with liturgical reforms, no more than the current drop in child sexual abuse has to do with climate change.

 

[Brendan_64]

If active participation was present among the faithful as you state, Vatican II and this document was waisted exercise.

However, it wasn’t the case. Being present doesn’t constitute full participation. Instead, for the most part the faithful watched the priest and altar boys recite Latin prayers by rote. Most of the time even the Latin wasn’t heard and was recited so rapidly, it was near impossible for the average person to follow even using the missal

I don’t agree with the points you make on your second paragraph. It really depends on what is meant by active participation. Is active participation an internal or external action? Is active participation witnessing and absorbing the sacrifice or is it saying and doing things? Did Mary and John actively participate as they knelt at the foot of the cross as Our Lord was given up?

I would also question whether there is more active participation today. How many people attend Mass and carry out all the actions etc, yet go up and receive Communion without having observed the fast or without having been to Confession for many months or even years? Does all the chatter in the church before, after, or even during Mass represent a more active participation? Or genuflecting in front of the tabernacle, how much active paricipation do we see with that?

Is there really more active participation in the Mass today?

 

[Melchior_1]

At this point, regardless of personal opinion and bias, it’s safe to say that certain practices, disciplines, and approach(s) did need to change. Arguably the best example of this is the desperately needed call for the consecrated religious to go back to the charism(s) and vision of the founder, Prefectae Caritatis, came from Vatican II, and frankly, the negative ramifications of the Church being without it is staggering. “Perfect Charity” was desperately needed, and was needed much, much much (much) earlier than that.

i can see how one could think that certain practices/disciplines/approach(s) shouldn’t have changed. But I think it’s a stretch to reject the Council wholesale.

(And that’s not getting into the “lawful successor of Cephas holding the keys, thus having the authority” situation).

 

[josh987654321]

It’s obvious to the non-Catholic world we have an irregular situation with two living popes.

I agree, it’s clear to me too, I’m sure though Christ is with His Church and will not let her perish

Didn’t Benedict XVI abdicate?

Not sure if one can, God ultimately chose him, how then can he give it to another? nevertheless, I’m sure in time the truth will be known, currently Pope Francis is our Holy Father until otherwise (e.g. Only if Benedict were to dispute it)

My parents stopped taking us to church when the post v2 changes happened.

The fact that CAF has a forum titled, Traditional Catholicism is divisive in of itself.

I agree, there is no ‘left’ or ‘right’ in Catholicism.

God Bless

Thank you for reading.

 

[Genesis315]

Reject, no, but unfortunately, Vatican II has been pretty much a total failure despite the best efforts of saintly and learned people–i’ts objectives were not achieved–usually the opposite happened. You can go document by document, ask what the purpose was, read it, and see what happened afterward.

The Council may have restated the truth in an orthodox way, but the pastoral methods it chose and engendered just haven’t worked…

Constitutions:

Church: understanding of the most basic truths about the Church were thrown into confusion (CDF has had to intervene at least four times to clarify that the Catholic Church alone is still the sole Church of Christ) and rather than being treated as a necessary “sacrament of salvation” salvation became generally presumed to be found everywhere.

Modern World: the nature of man has been thrown into more confusion than ever and the world is less Christian and more hostile to the Church.

Liturgy–belief in the real presence and understanding of the meaning of Mass has plummeted, liturgical abuses went way up, and Mass attendance and participation on Sundays has plummeted (not to mention vocations to the priesthood).

Revelation: at least in my experience, the Scriptures are treated more like error riddled human writings by clergy than before.

Declarations:

Education: once solid Catholic institutions have mostly been completely secularized

Other religions: there have been excesses into indifferentism, an increase in hostile sects, with little common goals being achieved (society has gotten even more secular and hostile to religion).

Religious Freedom: instead of the true doctrine of religions freedom found in the declaration and catechism, instead what was spread and implemented in once Catholic countries was the false version condemned so often that makes relative conscience supreme, and separates the truth about God and man from public life.

Decrees:

Laity: the faithful are just as, if not more divided between their private faith and what they think society should be shaped like (just look at polls on issues like same-sex marriage).

Ecumenism: most non-Catholic communities have gotten farther away from the Catholic Church in their doctrine (especially with regards to morality, gender issues, and sacramental practice), and religious indifferentism and irenicism has spread more in the Catholic Church

Missions: the urgency of seeking conversions for the salvation of souls has too often been suppressed and replaced with merely spreading social development

Religious: most of the convents and monasteries emptied and many of those left turned to un- or non-Christian activities (weird cosmic evolution stuff, reiki, or just plain secular social work).

Eastern Churches: see above re Constitution on the Church and decree on ecumenism

Communications: dissenting publications multiplied

Bishops: most bishops seem to act more like careerist middle management, and less like vicars of Christ than ever.

Priests/Training: vocations fell, priests leaving multiplied, priests promoting their own opinions and doing their own thing in the liturgy went way up, discipline became lax, not mention the scandals…

 

[Rau]

Bishops: most bishops seem to act more like careerist middle management, and less like vicars of Christ than ever.

Are you so familiar with so many bishops that you can make that statement?

 

[Genesis315]

Maybe it’s just the ones in the news a lot–but the change in pontificates seemed to really affect a change in many bishops. “Middle management” was probably too cynical a term, but it seems they act more like vicars of the Roman Pontiff (which Vatican II was adamant they are not to be). Now that an apparently less “rigid” Pope is in there, there seems to be more bishops proposing various novelties, whereas they toed the line previously. Others remain silent when there is confusion at the top. If one is serving the unchangeable Jesus Christ, who the Pope is shouldn’t change so much.

Again, after Vatican II, so much novelty, liturgical abuse, and doctrinal confusion would not have taken hold if there was a strong, committed episcopate (since the Pope at the time was vacillating himself on how to handle things and not taking decisive action).

Where there are good bishops, there are more good fruits, more vocations, etc. The Pope can’t and shouldn’t do it all.

 

[edwest211]

There is some incorrect information here:

1. Vatican II did not fail. What did occur was an attack on the Church by dissidents inside and outside the Church which began after the Council ended in December 1965. This included the removal of statues, communion/altar rails and even artwork. As Pope Benedict noted, since he was there, deformations of the Liturgy occurred. So, the rules were purposely not followed in many cases. The Mass would soon be in English with the priest facing the people, but some used their role for changes not even suggested by the Council.
2. Prime time for dissent from within was the late 1960s and '70s. Women priests were brought up then, not 10 or 20 years ago, for example. In 1967, Pope Paul VI created a panel to review changes in contraception, like The Pill, and the Sexual Revolution. In 1968, Humanae Vitae was published and within 24 hours, a group of Catholic theologians, going far beyond their authority, had published a full page article of dissent in the New York Times. They said, contrary to the Encyclical, that using artificial birth control by married couples was OK. Causing confusion and scandal among the Catholic laity and the general public. Prior to its publication, the Pope’s advisors had recommended the loosening of restrictions on artificial birth control. Instead, the Pope reaffirmed constant Church teaching.
3. in 1968, the worst you could legally do was buy Playboy, which had photos of partly nude and nude women, and, if you knew where to go (usually a liquor store), you could buy girlie magazines that had more photos and a lot less type. In the 1970s, Adult Bookstores selling graphic porn, topless bars and strip clubs opened. Who allowed all this? So began the hyper-sexualization of the West.
4. Hippies and Anarchists came into our neighborhoods and abused our trust. Dump the Church and all her teachings, mom and dad were “squares,” conformists, and not “free.” “Don’t trust anyone over 30!” “We’ll burn this country down if we have to!” So they preached their gospel: sex with anyone, cohabitation instead of a piece of paper (marriage meant nothing), smoke dope and use other illegal drugs. And read books about Eastern mysticism. Hippie yoga.

This was unheard of. And all of this was paid for by persons unknown and implemented by persons unknown. Am I making my point? Time doesn’t change anything, only people do. But that kind of fantasy thinking is still seen here in threads like “Is it time for the Church [to change this or that]?”

1. A priest on Catholic radio related how “thing went nuts in the seminaries” starting in the 1970s. Who allowed that?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704586504574654282563939764

 

[pnewton]

Reject, no, but unfortunately, Vatican II has been pretty much a total failure despite the best efforts of saintly and learned people–i’ts objectives were not achieved–usually the opposite happened

That’s a matter of opinion. Having read threw your list, I find a whole lot of it of questionable validity.

 

[Genesis315]

Vatican II did not fail. What did occur was an attack on the Church by dissidents inside and outside the Church which began after the Council ended in December 1965.

But isn’t that evidence of its failure? The Council failed to bring about the renewal it was supposed to bring about. A failure to even implement its own acts is almost a more significant failure. The floodgates were opened after the Council and the bishops and Pope who participated in the Council did very little to stop it and bring about the stated objectives.

I may take the best swings I can, but if I strike out, I have failed (even if it’s because the pitcher was too good for me and I tried my best). If I keep striking out, maybe a new approach is needed (or, if I had success in the past, maybe going back to the old approach is needed).

 

[edwest211]

1. The media, which was generally very clean prior to 1970, suddenly began to portray things differently - bad things - starting in 1970 on TV, and a few years earlier in movies. Start showing a little bad, and year after year, a little more and a little more until today. The Body of Christ in the West was gradually, slowly poisoned. And in recent years, more poison and comments by radicals like “They (meaning us) aren’t ready for ‘that’ yet.” “That” meaning something bad.

1. In good news, Churches are restoring those things that were removed in the 1960s. A realization is growing, in an outward way and in a spiritual way, to recover what was lost.
2. Pope John Paul II revoked the authority to teach from a prominent dissident. The same dissident who would comment about Pope Benedict wearing old vestments at Mass: “The Pope wants to return the Church to the Middle Ages.” Hardly.

 

[Genesis315]

In which areas do you think the Church is better off compared to before the Council? Where do you think the Council has successfully achieved its aims?

 

[pnewton]

Better understanding of the liturgy among the faithful.
Quicker reaction to a changing world, especially in bioethics.
Increase of Scripture reading in the vernacular.
Better ecumenical relationships
Better understanding of religious freedom and its relationship to human free will.
Courageous bishops.

I agree with you on more dissenting publications, but I credit that mostly to the internet where bloggers proliferate with their dissent.

 

[Genesis315]

I should add, I’m usually the guy defending the orthodoxy of Vatican II–including the fact that docile obedience to its letter would have likely yielded different fruit. But the same Pope and bishops that passed the acts, were the same people tasked with implementing it. They failed to achieve their objectives. The renewal simply didn’t happen, as Pope Paul himself spoke about multiple times.

I wish it would have succeeded in its aims.

 

[JimG]

But isn’t that evidence of its failure? The Council failed to bring about the renewal it was supposed to bring about

Speaking for my own diocese, I think that the renewal was ultimately successful. The current OF liturgy is reverently celebrated and parishes do have a lot more lay participation than prior to Vatican II. It’s just that most places had to endure a lot of weirdness in the process of getting here. But historically, the weirdness was only a blip. Of course, when you’re living through it, it seems interminable.

 

[edwest211]

That’s right. The weirdness is beginning to lift. That’s why people need to know there were those inside the Church - and some that still are - that were actively against doing things the right way.

https://lms.org.uk/faqs

 

[Genesis315]

Better understanding of the liturgy among the faithful.

Is this the case? From all the stats I have seen, Mass attendance is way down and belief in the Real Presence is way down, and understanding of Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice is way down. Liturgical abuse seems to be a real problem (the Vatican has had to issue various docs on the topic)–why would someone who understood what Mass was abuse the liturgy so? Why would people who understood it better stay away more?

Quicker reaction to a changing world, especially in bioethics.

Honestly, I’m not seeing how its any quicker–I guess this is hard to measure. Which document of Vatican II provided for this? Gaudium et Spes maybe? Gaudium et Spes was supposed to provide for the Church’s engagement of and shaping of the modern world–despite a sterling doctrine with regard to bioethics, I’m not seeing it having influence in the world (this goes along with the laity’s role)–bioethics in the modern world have gotten worse and worse. In fact, the laity seem to not be impacted much by it (check the polls re IVF or abortion).

Increase of Scripture reading in the vernacular.

As a result, do Catholics know their faith better? The biggest complaint on CA since I’ve been here is poor catechesis. Without it, reading the Bible in the vernacular will not bear the intended fruit. With looser translations and footnotes that undermine the supernatural character, it gets worse. I don’t know how many priests I’ve heard undermine Jesus’ miracles or say He couldn’t tell the difference between demons and epilepsy, or the OT conception of God was erroneous in some way or another, etc. The vernacular doesn’t seem to have helped them understand better…

Better ecumenical relationships

The goal is unity in the Catholic faith and Church. Groups which were much closer, like the Lutherans and Anglicans, have now moved farther and farther by ordaining women and blessing certain immoral relationships, despite being friendlier. Cardinal Kasper had a good speech about this to the Anglicans a while back, about their departure from diachronic unity and how it pretty much ended any hope of real reunion. I guess the ordinariate was a decent fruit from this (of course, it was carried out without engaging the curial office for ecumenism…)

Better understanding of religious freedom and its relationship to human free will.

There seems to be the most confusion about this, rather than clarity–when a contradiction is alleged, this is the most apparent example–it is not explained well how it reconciles with past, definitive judgments from the Church (no explanation is really provided) (I think it can be reconciled, especially in light of the clarifications in the catechism and have defended it many times–but the sheer amount of conferences and theological articles on the subject trying various ways to show how the two work together show that it is not obvious.)

continued…

 

[Genesis315]

continued from above

Courageous bishops.

Vatican II was to supplement Vatican I (which was cut short) on the role of the bishop in his particular Church, especially in relationship to the Roman Pontiff, re-affirming the bishop’s direct and ordinary responsibility over his flock. Again, all the crazy stuff done in the name of Vatican II was almost never even addressed by the bishops, as far as I can tell (with a few notable exceptions)–I don’t see much disciplinary action at all taken to correct these things (not to mention in light of the scandals too) when Vatican II re-affirmed their responsibility to do so. The Council’s objective simply did not pan out. There were courageous bishops before and after and less-than-courageous bishops before and after. But I don’t see an increased sense of responsibility overall (other than as a pretext to promote erroneous novelties, rather than for rooting out error and guarding the liturgy, among other things).