Has Vatican II caused more trouble than good?

[stmaria]

The only valid interpretation of Vatican II is interpretation in the light of Tradition. Ecumenical Councils build on the deposit of faith and previous teachings rather then change them. If one interprets the documents of Vatican II in such a way that makes them appear as forces of change in terms of doctrine, then that is an erroneous interpretation.

In “Dignitatis Humanae”1.5 it states, “Over and above all this, the council intends to** develop the doctrine of recent popes **on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society.

Develope or change doctrine? I believe it changed doctrine.

 

[GerardP]

First off, I would like to say that I recognize the Second Vatican Council as inspired and guided by the Paraclete. But, my question is, have misinterpratations of V2 caused more trouble than the actual Council has fixed?

Just a quick clarification on this. The Holy Ghost doesn’t inspire and guide Councils. The Holy Ghost has one job. Prevent the Council from directly teaching error.

There are no promises to the Church to prove that the Holy Ghost called Vatican II, that was Pope John’s personal statement. It has no binding power to it. And other documentation seems to indicate that he was overly enthusiastic. There was a push for a council years before he actually called it.

A council can be a bad idea, executed badly and the Holy Ghost may or may not do something to provide good fruit because of it or in spite of it.

The fruits of a council are not guaranteed either.

Vatican II provides nothing of value that a Pope singly could not have done on his own and better.

It’s just as valid to speculate that if the Church leaders had reaffirmed the Church’s opposition to the world, the flesh and the devil. The 60’s would have been severely reigned in.

 

[Genesis315]

There was a push for a council years before he actually called it.

This is true. I think people often forget the fact that in Pius XI’s first encyclical (Ubi Arcano), where he lays out the plan for his pontficate, one thing he says he plans to do is call a Council. Of course, the instability of Europe prevented it until after World War II had ended and some relative peace was present.

 

[Genesis315]

In “Dignitatis Humanae”1.5 it states, “Over and above all this, the council intends to** develop the doctrine of recent popes **on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society.

Develope or change doctrine? I believe it changed doctrine.

Devolopment is not change. Pius XII discussed the “progress of the Sacred Doctrine” in his encyclical, Divino Afflante. Often when opposite errors present themselves, certain teachings must be further developed to combat them–Communism, Fascism, and totalitarianism needed to be countered. In the 19th century, the Church had develped doctrine to deal with radical Liberalism–it was very one sided because Liberalism was extremely one-sided. But the other aspect of that very same sphere of doctrine had to be better developed to combat the error to the extreme opposite of Liberalism. Thus, 19th century teaching provided the true limits of certain individual behaviors as well as the true authority of the state which was falsely limited. It is complemented by 20th century teaching which provided the appopriate limits to state action which had exceded it’s true authority.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I understood the OP’s question. This question is not uncommon when changes are made no matter what the involve. IMHO It is the question that should always be asked prior to implementing any “new”, “improved” or “modernized” rules.

Sister you feel rather confident that the meaning you took away was an understanding of what the OP was trying to convey…

But I am left wondering if he or she understands two different questions have been presented here.

We don’t know what would have become of the Catholic Church should it have been the case that there were no changes in the Mass. Period.

 

[Ad_Deum]

If the second vatican council was really inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit why do we have problems in vocations, declining Mass attendance, morality problems, hierarchy problems, splits in the church and so on?

The Holy Spirit leads us to perfection and holiness not in immoralities and confusions within the church.

Pax!!!
Instaurare omnia in Christo!!!

 

[demerzel85]

If the second vatican council was really inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit why do we have problems in vocations, declining Mass attendance, morality problems, hierarchy problems, splits in the church and so on?

Yet neither was the Church in the best of states just prior to Vatican II. It one thing to say after Vatican II, vocations and mass attendance declined, and so there is a correlation between the Council (or the mentality/spirit of it). Its quite another to say that it caused it.

Even then to this very day, Vatican II reforms have not been carried out properly. Gregorian Chant and Polyphony is still not the norm for example.

 

[rwoehmke]

Anyway, concerning the OP, anyone who’s read the history of Councils knows the aftermath is usually rough–Bishop Fulton Sheen explains in his autobiography that Vatican II was a great outpouring of the Holy Spirit, but like in previous instances, such outpouring is usually met with an outpouring of demonic spirit.

Now, we see this in the history of other Councils–as St. Gregory of Nazianzen said:

“To tell the truth, I am convinced that every assembly of bishops is to be avoided, for I have never experienced a happy ending to any council; not even the abolition of abuses …”

Likewise, St. Basil speaks of the “shocking confusion and disorder” and the “incessant chatter” that filled the Church after councils.

And these two saints were speaking of Councils we now consider to be foundations of our faith!

Amen:thumbsup: